So thank you for inviting me here to speak today. Can you hear me okay? Okay. So I'll be presenting on behalf of UF and also on behalf of the Ignite Pharmacogenetics Working Group. So we heard earlier from Laura on the Emerge Working Group, and so I'll be presenting work from the Ignite Group. So this slide shows our timeline for pharmacogenetic implementation at UF Health. And as you can see, our initial implementation was with SIP-2C-19 testing to predict response to clopidogrel and guide antiplatelet therapy after PCI. And we chose to start with this particular implementation for several reasons. One is that there is very consistent evidence that there is decreased effectiveness of clopidogrel in individuals with a loss of function SIP-2C-19 variant. There is now a box warning on the labeling for clopidogrel, warning about reduced effectiveness of poor metabolizers. And then of course we have CPIC guidelines available to assist us with translating the genotype results into prescribing decisions, and they specifically recommend the use of alternative antiplatelet therapy, usually press and grill or ticagrel or in the absence of any contraindications to individuals with a loss of function variant. About a year after we started our implementation, we received funding from Ignite as part of that network. And then since then we've really expanded what we've offered. We started implementing SIP-2C-19 testing for clopidogrel in our Jacksonville campus about a year ago. Here we're using a rapid genotyping platform, so it's a little bit different from what we're doing in Gainesville. And then we've also implemented a number of other gene drug pairs into practice. We recognize that it's important with many of these that we contribute to the evidence based on outcomes, as we talked about yesterday. And so with many of our implementations we have designed for pragmatic studies around these. And we also talked about yesterday how it's hard to do these at a single institution. So we have collaborated with other institutions to look at outcomes. For example, we're working with Moffitt and Howard just down the street from us to look at outcomes with SIP-2D6 testing to guide opioid prescribing for pain. And then we're working with DeMores Children's Hospital in Orlando to look at the effect of SIP-2C-19 guided PPI dosing on GERD and dyspepsia symptoms. And we have a simultaneous study looking at computable phenotypes related to adverse effects with PPI's with Vanderbilt and SIP-2C-19 genotype. But I'm going to focus from here on out on our work with SIP-2C-19 and Clopidogrel. So just very briefly, Clopidogrel is a pro-drug. Once it enters the body, reaches the liver and undergoes this two-step process to bioactivation. And SIP-2C-19 is involved in both steps of this bioactivation process, leading to this active metabolite that then binds irreversibly to the P2Y12 receptor to inhibit platelet aggregation. We know that about 25 to 35 percent of whites and blacks and up to 65 percent of Asians have a non-functional or loss-of-function variant. I'll be calling it LOF or loss-of-function variant for the rest of the talk. Sorry, Mary. I know that's not exactly per the standardization, but that's how we refer to it when I presented these data at AHA, and I'll be showing those slides here. So in these individuals, they may have reduced production of active metabolite and decreased inhibition of platelet aggregation with Clopidogrel. There are, as I mentioned earlier, consistent data mostly from retrospective or post-talk analysis of randomized controlled trials and patient registries that have shown decreased effectiveness of Clopidogrel in individuals with a loss-of-function allele. In one of the more highly cited studies, it's a meta-analysis by Jessica Meaghan or colleagues where they looked at nine different trials, 9,700 Clopidogrel-treated patients. They were very high-risk patients, most of whom had an acute-coordinary syndrome and underwent PCI, and what they found is that the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular events, which they defined as CB death and Mayan stroke, in addition to stent thrombosis, was significantly greater in Clopidogrel-treated patients with versus without a loss-of-function variant. There is an ongoing randomized controlled trial that's looking at clinical utility with genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after PCI, and it's called Taylor PCI. It started in 2013, and they're targeting about 5,300 patients who undergo PCI, and they're being randomized to a genotype-guided strategy where ticagrelor is used for loss-of-function allele carriers and Clopidogrel is used for others versus Clopidogrel without genotyping. And they're looking at MACE at one year, but unfortunately we won't have the results from this for another three years. So when we started our currently, with our implementation at UF Health, what we found is the most feasible approach for providing genotype-guided therapy is to place the genotype order on the post-PCI order set, so that way, and it's actually defaulted, so that every patient who undergoes PCI will get genotyped, unless the physician chooses to deselect that test. We run the test in our pathology laboratory. It's actually located a bit off campus, and there's about a two to three day turnaround time, and then the result, once it's done, it's placed in the electronic medical record. We have a clinical pharmacist that then follows up on all of the genotyping results, and for patients who have a loss-of-function allele will notify the treating physician about that and recommend alternative therapy as long as there are no contraindications. And then we built clinical decision support, which basically, if clopidogrel is prescribed for a patient with a loss-of-function allele, then an alert will appear stating that there is a risk for reduced effectiveness in recommending alternative therapy, and similar to what Josh Denney showed yesterday, it has the contraindications to these drugs and other information that maybe needed to really smooth this prescribing process and make it very simple for the prescriber. So we implemented this as part of clinical care. This was not an a priori design clinical trial, but after the first two years of the program, we decided to go back and see what happened with our patients who received genotyping after PCI. So we reviewed the medical records. We had 408 patients at this time point, and we collected data on re-hospitalizations for adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke or synthrombosis, as well as cardiovascular death that occurred within six months of them getting a PCI in genotyping. We then compared this composite MACE endpoint between patients who had a loss-of-function allele and were treated with alternative therapy, this predominantly consisted of ticagrel or oproxagrel, versus those with a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel. So these are initial results from UF Health. This is the cumulative MACE rate over six months after PCI. And what you can see, that top line here where it's red, those are patients with a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel, and you can see they have a much higher risk for MACE compared to those with a loss-of-function allele here at the bottom on alternative therapy with the blue line. And there's no difference between those who had a loss-of-function allele treated with alternative therapy versus those without a loss-of-function allele. And again, this was in about 408 patients. About 30, I think it was 31% had a loss-of-function variant. So then we decided we wanted to look at this in a much larger group, and we did this within the Ignite Pharmacogenetics Working Group. So the working group consists of sites that are funded within the Ignite Network, in addition to a number of affiliate members. We have, I think, at least 10 affiliate members in the Pharmacogenetics Working Group. Most affiliates are in the working group. And we do have a little paper. I don't have the reference here, but we have some information and overview sort of of the working group and what we're doing that was published in Clinical Translational Science. I think it's either in press or online ahead of print or was recently published. So of all of the groups in the working group, the primary implementation was CYP-2C19 testing for clopetagrel. And so we decided that we would look at outcomes with this approach to anti-platelet therapy. So the seven groups shown here in blue contributed data to this analysis, and then the two other groups contributed data on contemporary use patterns with anti-platelet therapy. I won't show that here, but basically they showed that clopetagrel is still the primary anti-platelet drug that is used after PCI, even in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. So this is a multi-center pragmatic investigation of outcomes. All seven sites involved, as I mentioned, had clinically implemented testing into practice. So this was not done as any part of a clinical trial to guide anti-platelet therapy after PCI. At each site, alternative therapy was recommended in those who had a loss of functional allele, but the ultimate prescribing decision was left up to the physician. And there was no genotype-guided recommendation made for those without a loss of functional allele. So our aim was that among these patients who got tested at the time of PCI to compare the risk for MACE, or major adverse cardiovascular events, between those with a loss of functional allele on alternative therapy, which is predominantly Prasigrel or Tychagrelor. And we'll call this the LOF Alternative Group, versus those with a loss of functional allele on standard dose clopetagrel. And I'll call this the LOF Clopetagrel Group. And then we also compared MACE between the LOF Alternative Group and patients without a loss of functional allele, which I'll call the non-LOF group. So also in sites manually abstracted data from the electronic medical record, we talked yesterday about coming up with a common, you know, defining common outcomes to look at. And so we actually spent a good amount of time with everyone who participated in defining the data elements that we wanted to collect, and specifically defining how or determining how we wanted to define MACE. We came up with this common data collection sheet. We used the data collection sheet from the International Clopetagrel Pharmacogenetics Consortium as a baseline to start with. And then we went from there. I think we ended up with about 60 variables that we collected, clinical variables, variables related to the outcomes. And this data collection tool is actually posted on the Ignite website in the toolbox for others to use to examine outcomes. So each site reviewed the medical records for their patients. They collected data on medication use, specifically on antiplatelet drug therapy, clinical variables, hospitalizations for cardiovascular events, and deaths that occurred over a 12-month period after the PCI when they got the genotyping done. And then all the data was sent to UF where it was curated, and then it was aggregated together for analysis. So our primary outcome was MACE, and we defined this as a composite of death MI or stroke within 12 months after the indexed PCI. That was the PCI associated with genetic testing. We assessed antiplatelet therapy at the time of the event or the last encounter for those who did not have an event, and for individuals. And this was the time of last encounter when the antiplatelet therapy was documented. And we also looked at time to prescribing antiplatelet therapy in individuals with a loss of functional yield. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare time to MACE between the groups, the LOF alternative versus LOF clopetagro, and LOF alternative versus non-LOF group. We used logistic regression to summarize the clinical differences between groups into a propensity score, and then the hazard rates were compared with Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment. So these are the results, and we presented these at the American Heart Association this past November, and the manuscript is currently under review. And I forgot to mention that the UF health data we had actually presented the previous year at American Heart. So we had 1,815 patients in the total cohort. 31.5 had a loss of functional yield, which is consistent with what's reported. Of these, 60.5% were treated with alternative therapy. And then if you look in comparison among patients without an LOF allele, only 15.5 were treated with alternative therapy. So this was a significant difference in the use of alternative antiplatelet therapy between those with and without a loss of function allele. And the predominant antiplatelet therapy that was used was Prasegral. It comprised over 60% of the alternative antiplatelet therapy used. These are the patient characteristics shown by the LOF alternative, LOF clopidogrel, and non-LOF groups. So overall, the mean age was about 63 years. We had mostly men and mostly people of European ancestry. This was a very high-risk population. We had about a 38 overall prevalence of diabetes. And about 67% of individuals had an acute coronary syndrome at the time of their PCIs, a very high-risk population. There were differences between groups, which is expected. This is clinical care. This was not done in any of the sites as a clinical trial. You can see that compared to the LOF alternative group, those in the other two groups were slightly older, had a higher prevalence of diabetes. There was a higher greater history of struggle TIA in the LOF clopidogrel group, which likely led to them using clopidogrel versus alternative therapy. And then I think there were more whites in the non-LOF group. Other differences were similar between groups. In terms of implementation metrics, so again, this was done as clinical care, but very nicely surprisingly, I guess, there was very efficient implementation of genotype-guided therapy. So the median time to genotype among these groups was one day, and the median time to alternative anti-cladelet therapy in those with a loss of functional yield was also one day. This is the results. So we saw a significantly higher rate of maze in this LOF clopidogrel group at the top compared to the LOF alternative group. There's the log-ranked p-value of .016. There was no difference between the LOF alternative group in maze versus those without an LOF allele. Again, most of these individuals were treated with clopidogrel in the non-LOF group. And you see the log-ranked p-value there. And then when we did Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment, there remained a significantly higher risk for maze in the LOF clopidogrel group versus the LOF alternative group with a hazard ratio of 2.21, and then no difference between the LOF alternative and the non-LOF groups. So our conclusion based on these data, one, we showed that this genotype-guided approach to therapy is feasible across multiple institutions in the U.S., and that we had very efficient return of genotype results overall and institution of alternative anti-cladelet therapy. And then our data suggests that in patients who have an LOF allele, we can improve cardiovascular events if the genotype is made available early after PCI and we implement alternative therapy in these patients. So in terms of next steps, one of the things we talked about yesterday was the importance of economic data. So we are working on an economic analysis. This is being led by Josh Peterson from Vanderbilt and Needle-Empty from UAB. Josh has a simulation model, which Josh Denny presented yesterday. And the preliminary work with that model has been completed. We're now refining it a little bit and doing some sensitivity analysis. But basically, we have a base case of clopidogrel for everyone, and that's compared with a approach of alternative therapy for everyone without genotyping. Genotyping at the time of PCI with alternative therapy used in those with a loss of function allele, others getting clopidogrel, or use of alternative therapy for the initial month in all patients. The genotype determined in having that available at one month and to guide antiplatelet therapy from that point on, so that those without a loss of function allele could be switched to clopidogrel. So be looking for those data soon. And I also want to mention that final approach with using alternative therapy first is what our UF Health Jacksonville site is really using for most of their patients. So we see a little bit of practice pattern change even though clopidogrel remains the primary drug. We are seeing a little bit of uptake with alternative antiplatelet therapy, and so this cost-effectiveness analysis will hopefully be very contemporary and help address that or take into account that. And then we're also working on a manuscript. This is being led by Phil Impey from Pittsburgh describing the actual strategies for implementation among the sites that were involved in addition to other sites to really showing there are more than one approach to implementing this into practice, but it still leads to improved outcomes. And I just wanted to conclude by acknowledging all the investigators that contributed to this, including Julie, our PI, and Kristin from UF, Todd Skar, who's here, Dan Rodin, Josh Denney, and then the rest of the investigators here, and then our significant funding from NHGRI and other institutes for this work and other sources as well, which are listed here at the bottom. Thank you. Thank you. I think we have time for one or two clarifying questions. In addition to PCI patients, clopidogoris, you see a number of other clinical categories. Would you like to comment what did you use PCI patients and would it genomic guided therapy work in other patients' categories? So we specifically focused on individuals undergoing PCI because the data that are available suggests that the risk for adverse outcomes in those with a loss of function allele is really those very high-risk patients. Such as those undergoing PCI. The data in other populations, such as those with stable coronary disease or individuals with ACS who are managed medically without PCI are more conflicting or inconsistent, more inconsistent than conflicting, I guess. But overall, the data consistently support an association in PCI patients, but not in other groups. What is, would be the proportion of PCI categories subpopulation to other subpopulation which also are given clopidogoris? So all of the patients here were PCI patients in our analysis. But clopidogoril is widely prescribed beyond just PCI, you're right. But the data supporting genotype guided therapy is really that PCI population. We are seeing at UF Health that they're using it or that post-stroke. They're actually starting to do some genotyping for CYP2C19 to help guide antiplatelet therapy and that area is a little bit more controversial because Prasagril, for example, is contraindicated in patients who have a history of stroke, but they are using it. We actually had one patient, so Josh Denny gave this example of a patient who had five stents. We've had a patient who I think had three strokes. Each time on clopidogoril, they finally genotyped that patient in the patient support metabolizer. So there could be some implications in other areas. We just don't have the accumulation of data. Yes, Lynn? Yeah, Laurie, a beautiful presentation. Just to clarify, in terms of your MACE events according to your metabolizer status, so did you find that in your poor metabolizers they were more likely to have a stent thrombosis whereas an MI or are there correlations with the metabolizer status? That was a great question. So overall, I think about 50, I looked this up this morning so I can remember the numbers, little over 50 were poor metabolizers in the multi-center study. The remainder of LOF allele carriers were intermediate metabolizers. Almost all of our poor metabolizers were treated with alternative therapy, so the clinicians are paying attention there and maybe the box morning helps. However, among the intermediate metabolizers, that's where we saw the use of clopidogoril on about 40% of those who are intermediate metabolizers versus alternative therapy. So we actually did do a sort of subanalysis in that group looking at the composite outcome. I don't recall with the individual events, but we still saw significantly fewer events and intermediate metabolizers treated with alternative therapy versus intermediate metabolizers treated with clopidogoril and actually someone from the FDA has already contacted us to say what does it look like in your intermediate metabolizer? So perhaps this can help to revise the labeling for clopidogoril. Because I think that is really critical that the intermediate metabolizers are also experiencing MACE at a high rate. Yeah, I agree. So it's a large portion of the population. It's 30% who have a loss of function variant so it has large implications. Okay, Bob, I'm gonna ask that you hold your question for the discussion. Laurie, thank you for a great presentation and now we have Mark Williams who's gonna be talking to us about pragmatic applications of economic and cost-effectiveness analysis.


So the goal of this meeting is to look at Q1 priorities and although we already did this and just make sure that they're set and This is going to be the day zero for the Q1 So admin guys, are you ready to start? Yeah, I think I can speak. I Just one slide I can share the screen About that John, did you allow the screen sharing? So everyone should be able to share the screen? Yeah, I think I can. Okay, can you see it? Yes. Yes, okay. So we have prepared The project board, so it's available on the Github page here, the project number 16 where we are tracking all our Activities so our idea for the next four months is to work in on high roads to verify high roads adoption feasibility To improve development of the Pulsar network Expand GTN test automation and determine suitability of REVG for reference data management and Deploy existing tools to the CMFS network and use that Repository production so our milestones for that for Q1 or We would like to Have the use galaxy dust star service able to to switch to to load tools from the CMFS network I would like to run performance test on high roads and compare That times with with the the storage that use galaxy dot org is using now and if the test is a success It is to deploy adults To main and use for new data We'll be prepared the storage roadmap and Again Yes, that GTN automation test suite will be used also by the Galaxy so and I would like also to prepare a report on the issues and anomalies that we are collecting executing common workflows against production Pulsar site More or less is the idea that we are for the Q1 period Any question I have one question So when we're gonna switch all three galaxies to see the MFS to pull the tools We need to at some point review the tool set because actually when you look at tools at all instances There's a number of tools that need to be purged or at least moved to some disabled should be hidden. That's what I mean so I That should be one of the goals for one of the groups probably for the tools group Or maybe for scientific applications a group is to review actually tools that are currently in that common set I think we can collaborate together Thanks Jamal. I think it's Also a very good idea to actually put also something like Determine sustainable suitability of refugee into the agenda and to spend some time to evaluate that My only hint is that the D The back end group has also on their agenda a topic to Discuss more broadly object store and and storage As part of their back-end work So I would really encourage the admin group to team up with the back-end group to make a joint meeting And discuss storage and object stores together To follow up on that I will I also have a meeting And the end of month this month or maybe early February loop Loop the back end people who are interested in storage and remote storage And then I'll I'll CC the admin team on that one minute So any Objections to Feasibility of these milestones If not let's move on All right, so the back-end group is next Our project board is 11 So we have three sort of main priorities There's many more details on the project board, but these are the three main things So we want to modernize the galaxy API We've looked at fast API we've already merged this galaxy can start Under fast API now what this allows us so it's it's an async framework. It's a modern framework It's a framework at all because we didn't really use a framework before It gives us async routes and it gives us web sockets So two modern technologies where we can use to improve Things that should happen Quickly events so the Thing that we would need this for first would be history updates Job updates Things that should happen rapidly So that's what they're good is good for it's also using typing And it has a nice automated documentation generation two things that What typing we haven't done before an automated documentation always great because our documentation especially for the API Is essentially just look at biobland which is not the good strategy. I think Not that biobland is bad but Galaxy should have better documentation of its API And together with the async aspect is we need to get Some legacy patterns and how we use SQL like me our database layer We need to rework those patterns so that we can use 1.4 which introduced async and compatibility So the milestones for that part are that galaxy starts on the unicorn you become instead of paste you whiskey Optionally in twenty one or five and then we make the switch in twenty one or nine We will convert a few routes fully to fast API so Fast API can already serve the old routes, but we want to make them better And document them fully. So that's ongoing We want a web socket subscription endpoints So you can just get like in real-time updates as they happen on the server And one of the first things we need for Truly async routes is that we can do async queries with SQL alchemy So the next big priority is enhancement to how my galaxy manages data So that includes multiple quota. So if storage can come from multiple places, you need to track How much space can be used where can the job go and so on And so the kinds of storage that we're thinking about here are mostly scratch storage Take storage And so we build the API To summarize the usage and work together with the UI user Group to have a nice Visual representation of that We will enhance the Galaxy files plug-in so that you can import and export history There will be a requirement for the end of the project Two things that didn't exactly make it to like something that we will Accomplish in Q1, but that still on the roadmap is Import data from user object stores and remote object stores That Galaxy can deal with data that it never imported never generated metadata for That's required for ITCR, but that's a big project and for that we first need the quota in place But we will have regular meetings to discuss how we want to implement this With the people that are going to work on that So the milestones are that you can configure multiple storage quotas that can be displayed That sharing will be disabled if data is somewhere where It is in a private Location for storage We will have history import and export to file plugins And we will have a plan for how we're going to move forward with user object stores and remote data And then final priorities performance So that's going to be in collaboration with the testing and deployment teams So we want to do performance testing that is closer to real big servers And we want to optimize how the job throughput and the performance performance And we want to optimize how the job throughput and one of the limiting factors here is the state change So the two things here are a CI framework That we run with every pull request and that compares before and after And sort of finds what is regressing or did we make any nice improvements So that we know that we're moving in the right direction in the same way if we have Like big changes but we're uncertain of like the impact that we have a standard way to look at this We're out of time And then yeah for the second part we just link the jobs with the data set so that you just look at the job state directly instead of the workarounds we're doing now That's it Can I ask every group you're showing these slides can you put them in the folder on the Google Drive where you're a charger No questions cancer informatics man Oh folks let me just share my screen here special hello to my European colleagues let's see Okay, so this is the overall roadmap for cancer informatics ultimately we want to have a sort of flavor of galaxy portal for these analyses living at Cancer Informatics Cancer.UseGalaxy.org so the initial push will be towards that end so we want to have a GVL based galaxy instance up that can use Google login that will eventually be tied to a fence instance Which is yeah Gen 3 IDP We want to install cyclic immunofluorescent tools and workflows which is a little more complex not complex but involved in it sounds since it's not just installing tool shed tools per se but some various custom tools that live in various places and ad hoc hodgepodge things so Smoothing that as part of that goal. In addition, we need to be able to pull from disparate places that are these data stores. Ultimately these are humongous files like I don't know 80 gigabyte multi layer tips that need to be pulled in analyzed and then perpetuated somewhere the federated data promise And then from there gets a little more nebulous in terms of what we're going to do since planning super far ahead is a bit tricky but once we have an understanding of how to interact with these services will wrap that into a data browser to have a more user friendly experience than SSH and pole get on the local file system import through galaxy sort of rigmarole or something like that. Then we were also very interested in interactive tools on this instance for it's very visual process a lot of pictures and identifying regions and multi colored magenta cell slides and things like that so being able to have this interactivity is key. And then then from there I suppose once we have a stable instance we're interested in looking at other sorts of tools and data sources and analyses that community folks might want to perform so that's more in the long term scope of our roadmap. Yeah, and other canonical sources of data and CI CRDC so on and so forth. That's about the high and low of it. On your, you'd have project page, your Q one tasks are you planning to assign them to specific. So admin group did this quite yes. We are just have not gotten around to it, unfortunately. No, you probably want to get around it fairly soon, not before the end of Q one. Certainly, probably before the end of the week. So, the list of stuff that we paired it down to I think for the first quarter here. The top thing is to get it is enabled and functional in GBL and Kubernetes based appointments of galaxy. And as part of that project will end up writing up a fair amount of documentation and probably doing some refinement on how it is work. And some of the little annoyances with using them currently. Another another goal here is to be able to pip install galaxy for quarter one that will most likely mean just different selling the application. And not the not having a solution for the client just yet. But maybe for for q2 will be able to come up with a nice install method for the client. The for GVL we'd like to be able to switch the data set store to Swift, whereas three back storage this gives us the for the groundwork for pulsar to direct stage to and from the object storage systems without galaxies the intermediary. And then, finally, in order to have more defined installable galaxy, such as with different stall galaxy, we need a more defined galaxy version. And so we need to come up with a procedure for creating point releases so, you know, 2021 one dot one dot two dot three. And an easy system for, you know, the people who are going to be in charge of creating those two to create them and have all the packages built and pushed out. And that is it for deployment. So the purely stylistic things here so the link there's no link to this project from your charter documents as far as I can tell. And also can you stick it on the community hub page. So it's that link that Dave shared so it can be easily jumped to. You know, like with cancer informatics you don't really assign things to anybody. So that probably. Yeah we're going to so we tried to get a meeting together. You know from the notice on Tuesday but weren't able to find times for everyone in the in the group by today. So, we will do that within the next week. So basically three things add project to the Google Doc added to the hub page and assigned tasks. Okay. The question for native this time. Please. So, regarding the last point in the list. So the point releases is the idea to basically replace the way where we didn't basically keep the branch and suggest to admin to keep the branch of data moving to tags, or is this more connected with the people installable galaxy and so by by packages. I think if you're going to, if you're going to use a clone it would probably still make sense to just use the release branch, especially because we're, you know that's that's gotten higher and higher quality over time so I don't think we need to worry too much about people not using an exact point release on there. But certainly if you want to be very deterministic in in your galaxy and its version. Then we will create get tags for it and you can use those. So it's kind of connected with the pipe by installable galaxy. Yeah yeah because the goal is so you know from these you can also build system packages if you need to have a galaxy installed on your cluster in order to to run metadata and that sort of stuff. So, for that. We need, we need actual versions and stuff. Thank you. Yep. Okay. That means human genetics. Hello, sorry. This is basically the same one as last time. We haven't assigned people like my name but basically every person or almost every person in the group is in two other groups so we're going to have a lot of collaborating with other groups. So, for example, one, I mean, yeah, the envelope tool set, we're going to do with the tools group is just getting a list of tools that are verified to be working and then setting up the testing infrastructure to make sure that they stay working. The integration is going to be with back end groups, mostly the and volafas plugin which works but is going to have to have some optimizing done and then enabling writing back through the plugin. Interactive tools with deployment group. It's going to be a little bit different in the GKE context just to have some GKE native things as opposed to the things that we do more genetically for Kubernetes with the deployment group so just translating that to GKE specifics. Deployment. Those one specific thing or I guess two specific things that are only for and or the galaxy cube man chart which is right now what the ploys the entire stack of NFS Postgres CVMFS in Galaxy onto GKE for Anvil. So that needs to be maintained and updated with when the new galaxy home chart comes out for 21 or one. So I want to create a testing ecosystem to make sure that at any given time galaxies deployable on Anvil so we can set up crown jobs to run every day or something and make sure that on any given day, if somebody goes to Anvil they can still launch galaxy. And we're already working with the blue team on some optimizations. And we've talked about some things that need to be done on the Leo side. And then some like maybe a little bit that we can still do on the galaxy side, although we've gotten started up to already be like about I think three minutes. We're working with everything from scratch on galaxy side so the bulk is now the seven minutes on the Leo side to deploy the cluster, which we need to cut down. And then finally just the more science stuff of actually developing workflows and more use cases for Anvil. That's it for me. And just like in the previous presentation there is, can you add this presentation to drive. I assume you have an though related get hub board project. Yes, I added this. I added the same things there as project board here. And we also have a, I'm not sure if it should stay private but we have a private Anvil repository right now on galaxy project. I think if you link this to the Google Doc and to have page that would be enough for now. We should try that when we should actually migrate it to the Anvil project slash galaxy repo and move that board. But then yeah, look it up. One question about tool set, is there a document I remember you were sharing it essentially as a Google Doc of the tools of curate set of tools is that is that somewhere. Yeah, I mean we still have the Google talk that you marked tools with lead and green. That was translated to basically we took, I took a dump of the currency VMFS tool shed and then removed everything that was read. But we still need to run the entire tool tests on a new Anvil instance with all the changes and make sure that those still work.  Because that has implications to, for example, common tool set. Okay, I'll add it to slides and to this project board. Thank you.  Don't find are you presenting or I don't think we hear you or whoever is presenting. Okay, here you are. So we haven't had the name of the people on the GitHub project yet, but they are on listed on the charter document in Google Drive for the task assigned to everyone. So one of the main project is the community website that Nick is working on. We have a prototype by the end of Q1 and one of the milestone in this process is to have a document with description of the content structure and the website functionalities and setting on the system that's going to be used for that platform. And then concerning the training and outreach video we aiming to have video covering analyze data and workflow interface by the end of Q1 and include them in GTN as micro tutorials that can be linked as snippet everywhere. We want to establish a calendar for the integration of automatic screenshots by the end of Q1 to have more visibility for the next following quarters. We are migrating the FAQ to training material. We start by building a relationship map of the FAQ to have a clear vision of what can go into the training material, what are the priorities. And at the same time, we're going to develop templates for the inclusion of troubleshooting into the GTN so that the next coface we can enroll people to transfer easily from the FAQ to the templates and have it moving quickly. So the next coface is going to happen with a paper cut in February. So we need to advertise the event to prepare the agenda and broadcast the recap of what's been done by the two projects together. We want to send the GTN paper by the end of the quarter. So we also have TI AS that has been deployed in other main, in other galaxy interfaces, so we need to advertise more where is, where it is available and how to use it. We also want to rework the code of conduct because we have noticed that when we have conferences with both, for example, we have more reported case than when we are alone. So that might be due to some lack in describing how to report or how to identify problematic behavior. So we want to include some more detail in the code of conduct. So by the end of the quarter, we want to have an idea of what are the points to improve to have a new code of conduct by the end of Q2 and GCC. We also want to work with the open life science project to advertise the project that are linked to the GTN or Galaxy. We have the gallantries going on, where by the end of Q1, we should have some first results and so we need to request and process the feedback of people using it. And then we have a Galaxy developer training that we're going to schedule and that's going to be discussed at the day round table, probably this month or the next. And any question? What is gallantries? Gallantries is a galaxy for higher education, so teaching undergrads. Okay, so you have quite a few tasks. Are there reasonable lists for one quarter? Well, we have 15 to 20 people on the group, so. All right. I have one question if you scroll all the way up on this. So with the videos, so videos covering workflow, these will be automatically generated ones, right? No, we don't know when the automatic one will be available. It will just be how to, just the same as the interface fundraise data. Who is going to be making them? Me mostly. Okay, so we'll talk about that. Any other questions? Dolphin also again, we'll add the link to this project board. It's in the Google Doc. It is, but it's not on the hub. Okay, support. Hold on a second. You're very purple. I'm very purple. Oh, hello. That's what I want. I'm sorry. I don't do this very often. And I'll be quick so it'll be fine. Can you guys see? Yep. Yeah, okay, so this is just our charter. And I'm just going to add the link to the hub. But I redid it and I'll re-link that to the hub. So there's really just three of us right now. So Ignacio and Igor, we just haven't a chance to get really wrapped up yet. So I'm thinking like Q2. And so primarily what we do is we give support, right? So these are all the places where we do that.  Tools and boards and all of that that exists. And most of our collaborations are going to be with the outreach and the training group. So, you know, we need to figure out who's going to be on the team and where we're going to track projects. So that might just be inside other projects. That's fine. And then mapping that fake use into a new structure is kind of a big deal. And we're going to prioritize that because everything else is based off that. So we've started that. You saw Delfine was done on the project board. So there's two main tasks. It's to transfer the training material. This is exactly cloned off of the other working group that Delfine just showed. And so we have a card on that project board. I can link that into here. And then the second thing is that there's a webinar for advanced features. And I want to make sure that all of these topics are migrated over into the GTN before we have the webinar so that we look like we're organized. So there's just a few things to do for that. All of this is currently in the hub right now.  There isn't a lot of graphics or anything else like that. So, and this hasn't really been, this has been discussed a little bit, it hasn't been started. I'll probably be working on one. Two and three. Or at least let me be half of one. So on account, I will be discussing that. And then I put this in here and I moved it to Q2. But maybe this isn't us. So. And now we wanted to curate the tool panel and we wanted to curate tools. And I really think that our tool tests are not enough. And the GTN tutorials are enough. We should look at actually, like how the tools are actually performing on the server. So are they passing or failing? You know, is there a usage problem? And so I kind of details into our. Finding technical issues. Know what to do about it. You know, target deprecated hide it, remove it, fix it. So that needs something fixed. And then go back and look at tools that have uses to issues. So that we can look at the ones that fail a lot. And then we know what kind of responses we've given to users about that. And does it need more tool help? And what can be directly incorporated into Galaxy? So. All of the, all the FAQs going into the. The, the. The GTN is as like a tutorial. That might not always be the best place. I might be better to put it on the help of the tool form itself. Or on the tool help. There's a little. Question mark. Next to tools. That isn't always utilized. And so I think we could, we could, we could leverage that. And so if you've got a problem with a. Particular tool, we've got sort of. Documents around that. Like the most common problems. I think we can include that directly in. So maybe whoever works on. This. Curation, we could be. We could help inform that with actual, like, like. Here's the numbers. Here's the versions of the tools. We could be able to do that. We could be able to do that. We could be able to do that. We could be able to do that. We could be able to do that. We could be able to do that. We could be able to do that. I don't know how many times it's used successfully or not. And here's why. So we can kind of give a break out of it. Why it's failing or why it's life. Difficult to use or why people keep asking about it. So. All of this is just sort of like a wish list of things that I think we'd need to do, but. It's, it can't. There's no way that I can do it in Q1. So there are two things. So one of them is. You probably want to decrease the volume of issues that you're dealing with. And one of the ways of doing this is that we need reliable statistics for tool usage. We don't have this form. I mean, we don't have it in the presentable form for Maine, but probably EU and AU and Australian ones have that. We can at least use this as the initial blueprint for figuring out which tools are used in which aren't. This is one of the priorities for admin group to use. So. We need to do this for Maine. That's time. And another thing is that unified tool set. So you sort of need to keep an eye on that. Right. So I think we're not going to be able to start that till Q2. So I just. There's, there's so much to get started for Q1. And I want that webinar to be well. So I, and we're going to need to get. We're going to get to have to get more people involved. Right. So I think we need to, we need to get more people involved. We need to get more people involved. We need to get more people involved. If you can help get connected with, I think we need tools. I think we're going to get need UI UX admin. And I see now there's a scientific group. We need to keep moving because we have. Number of groups left. Thank you. So. Okay. So I will. Briefly talk about scientific applications. This is the group which has a lot of people. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of people from hub. So I will fix all of these issues. The objective of this group. If I can share this document here. Is to. Is to highlight galaxy highlight real. But examples of real biological problems. That were shown with. That were solved with galaxy. So the goal is to highlight. Biological papers with a galaxy and go. And some of the immediate goals for Q one. Is finishing our SARS-CoV-2 efforts. And getting the. VGP. And pan genome related tools identified. Wrapped. Assembling the workflows. And. will they documents and create the board? For the testing and hardening group, basically it's the same objectives that we, for quarter one that we presented before the break, we put them into a project board. Marius already talked about the performance suite, but we've got that broken down into chunks that we'll be able to sort of accomplish useful things in quarter one, but sort of assemble them to the, so that we finish working product in quarter two. And then release testing is the other big thing, I guess that hasn't been touched on yet. We got 21.01 coming out, and I guess Sergey is gonna relieve the effort to get that release tested. And I think otherwise though, nothing has changed since the last time we presented. So I'll see the rest of my time unless there are questions. No questions, Mr. John, tools. All right, so we currently have one major priority and then based on how long and how big that one ends up being, we have several smaller things and part of our decision for how we're gonna deal with Q1 is actually specifically determine what roles we're taking with Ponemo and tool use, with training for new tool wrappers and a couple other things. So for example, we're looking at discussing tool, like IUC specific hackathons and paper cut days. There is a list of 35-ish tools that were listed as being used in VGP, several of which are not licensed in such a way that we would be able to wrap them, but most of them are, several of which we already have. We don't have specific names yet because we're all kind of reading through each of the tools. Some of them are extremely large from what I understand and will not be able to be put on certain servers for obvious reasons because extreme memory usage and time requirements. So to that end, we have not assigned yet, but we're planning to get all of these, or at least as many of these as possible wrapped by Q1 with the goal of having at least one of the little files that are wrapped in the VGP pipelines as runnable as a workflow in Galaxy. Just a quick comment. If you have any questions about these, I think my group has a lot of experience with all of these. In fact, we've published a few of these. Perfect. And this is, I actually wanted to ask Mike about this is, so are any of these products still used as 10x? I don't think so. I think we're in the transition period. So the company 10x has discontinued their linked read kit, but there are other more or less equivalent technologies out there that people are interested to use. So I think there's a lot of legacy data that's still out there. In principle, a lot of these tools could be used for these other approaches, but it's a valid question. And also for the tools that require a lot of memory, you're probably talking about some of the assemblers that... We're looking to wrap those and then probably make them, like put them in the tool shed, but not actually put them on any major servers that people can choose to run them locally or on a cloud instance that they can launch. Yeah, well, we have to wrap them first, I suppose. So how did this tool set? How did VGP get picked as the priority for Q1 and then the tools falling from that? It's a rapidly evolving area, which is fueled by advances in long read sequencing. And it's priority because we need to get on that train as soon as possible. Because right now, Galaxy is really good for Illumina data. It's not that useful if you have Pegbya or Oxford Nanopore. I mean, I'm talking about main tool set. And this needs to change because if we don't adapt to these technologies, we won't be able to be on the top. But what is your concern in this? Just, I mean, I'm wondering what's the, are we using tools or are we installing, we're adding tools that are sort of required by many according to popular, because every time I look at EU, there's, you know, they have a human cell Atlas version. They have the Nanopore server, they have the RNA one. There's like a dozen different servers. And on main specifically, it's frankly, I don't know, I mean, I don't know enough about tools, but it feels like the hodgepodge of things that are fairly dated. And so just, are we getting these requests from help? Are we getting them from the literature? Are we getting them from, you know, just include more of the user feedback or something? This is, so to answer that question is that we're going to do a review tool set. And so what's going to be at usegalaxy.star, CVMFS will not be a hodgepodge. The question with the multiple faces of .eu, that's a great question. I think we were sort of resistant, we can do this, I suppose, but we're resisting towards this for some technical reasons. Well, I think what we wanted to do is pursue the tool sets in the toolbox in a single instance. And that's sort of work in progress. That's not currently on our priority roadmap, but could definitely be pushed. So the idea there is to tag tools and be able to pull, for example, RNA-seq tools and so on. I don't know if we can, in a short term, to enable EU-like functionality. I'm not sure whether technically we can do this on main. That's a question to Bjorn and Nate, really. You're out of time. Okay, but technically it's not difficult. So if we wanted to go that route in the interim, we certainly could. I think we should go this round in the meantime. I think that's, we should do this. Well, let's talk about that. I don't think we can put it on Q1, but we should do it. Sure. And another thing on VGP is that we're trying to become members of this consortium, which will be a very good publicity thing for Galaxy Project in general. So, and plus it's a great project. It's an interesting open project for sequencing all over the place. And at this point, they're using commercial tools, well, commercial, the workflow tools that are using DNA and access. And what we want to bring is the oblique free distributed functionality system. System. Okay. UI. All right. Did that start sharing? Okay, cool. All right. So I took, or we took all of the priorities from our roadmap, put them on this GitHub board. The first column is the sort of meta information column that the intent is to have some information here. And then we'll, these are just the top level things. The board is going to be pretty active and things will move across it like you'd expect. But the idea is that each of these top level items in the far left column is checked off by the end of the quarter. Sorry, if you hear babies. So it's mostly the same stuff we talked about last time, the new history. We've already merged it and it's in beta mode for 2101. We're going to do a group review to sort of just walk through it, pick particular tasks, test them out and build an issue list that we will then resolve during quarter one. And then swap it in as primary interface during Q1 for 2105 release. So in 2105, the new history will be the history. The second priority is, collapse these things. The second priority is the workflow invocation interface. A lot of work has already been done on this but it basically provides all of the details about a workflow invocation in one component. So the initial PR is actually ready to go really early in the quarter. So we need to add some tests and probably do a little bit of polish and refinement. And then that's the second priority there. Batch operations is one that's maybe a little bit more ambitious because no work has been done on it at all yet. We need to figure out a list of desired operations and then implement a sort of generic operation API, kind of like in Gmail where you say, apply this to all matching emails to flag them or filter them or delete them like I do. And then we want to integrate that in the new history, not even bothering with the old one. I should note that most, all these cards actually do have people associated with them down if you dig in or almost all of them. We have a goal to get some collections UX improvements in. We decided that four items resolved out of the big project board is a good benchmark. So we're going to do that. IGV.js, we want to integrate that as a, first as a charts visualization in Galaxy. This basic single track IGV.js visualization is pretty much done, adding multiple tracks. There are some issues in the charts framework that we ran into, but anyway, so to resolve that and then have parameter driven viewport and things like that piped through without reloads is on the map. And then tool form verification. The idea is not to viewify the whole tool form. That's a big project. In Q1, we want to figure out the right strategy for replacing items, considering they're the impact they'll have across the application because multiple places use some of the widgets, right? So, and then we want to pick one element and convert it as a prototype for distributing the rest of them in Q2 and then finishing up the form. So that's just sort of a baby step towards that project with an I to Q2. The new user welcome, this is returning to that project where first time user gets, instead of the standard welcome they get a sort of a dashboard with curated content for a new user showing them how to use Galaxy. And then this is maybe a bit of a stretch goal but to really lean into per instance configurability so that you could have their own new user welcome and things like that. And then lastly, a library's UX review. We have a big board. So data libraries went through a big overhaul fairly recently with Oleg's verification there. And we also have a board that identified a whole bunch of issues with the old data libraries. But basically the goal for this task for Q1 is just to go through and get organized there and figure out where we need to take data libraries in Q2. It's not necessarily to do a ton of work on data libraries. And that's it. It sounds like a lot, but it's a pretty big group and they're pretty reasonably sized projects some of which have already had a lot of work done to them. So, yep. I think ITs like the UX around ITs is possibly missing from this list. That was not in our priorities list here and we were advised not to add priorities.  I mean, obviously UI UX is a huge category and we're gonna do a lot of stuff that's not on this list and that can be one of those things. I would argue that this is more important than library UX because for the ITs. I think that's a different kind of project though. This is not development at all. The library UX review is not development. If anything, I would say the batch operations, we could just push to Q2 and focus on... That's actually even more important than ITs. Okay. It's very painful to use a galaxy where they have very large histories and that would address all of these issues. So, some of this stuff with ITs was waiting for the right time. I don't wanna go over. We can still, we can follow up on that and try to get it done. Okay. Well, any questions to any group? I also, because what I don't want, what I don't like about this meeting is that sort of I'm talking here and that creates an impression and it's all about Maine, but in fact the list of people here is much bigger than the galaxy. So please, any other questions from anybody else? Are we, is there anything missing? And you see any potential connections and so on. I would like to ask all groups to add their project links to the hub and to Google Docs. So it's uniform. So we can look at them. It would be nice if all the projects also have a uniform structure, but that's not necessary, but as long as everybody knows where they are. And may I ask Dave and Bea to put the meetings of all groups to galaxy calendar. So everybody knows when the groups are meeting, for example, I personally would like to participate in two meetings, for example, in UI meetings. Yeah, I can coordinate that. Any other things we're missing? Anything we can make this better? Any suggestions? I have maybe a question to the working groups. Is it working that you can define dependencies on other working groups? Can we facilitate that process or is that fine? So example, again, that the backend group needs to deliver something that the frontend group needs to consume. Is that working okay or do you need to help help in facilitating that somehow? For that one in particular, I think it helps because a lot of us are in both of those groups. So it may not be the best example, but I don't see any problems there. But in what general, when the overlap is not so high, is that still working or? I don't know that at least for stuff that I'm involved in, I haven't tried yet, but we might need something, I don't know. I think the ITs was probably a good example, right? We mentioned that we have some stuff that needs to be worked on, but then no plan to actually do that. So to support the intergroup stuff, we have the point person listed on the hub page and we also have a WG-ALL, excuse me, Gitter channel. So it's not gonna solve our problems, but it will help. Okay, so I didn't say new year because new year for the project begins right now. That's the January one for our so happy new year. And thank you everybody. And we'll post that recording so we know what was happening if we forget. Happy new year. Thanks everyone, bye.


Thank you. Over to you, sir. Thank you, Ashnur. Thank you so much. Good evening, friends, ladies and gentlemen. It is pleasure as always to be part of the Indian law conclave. And the topic as Ashnur mentioned is quite interesting. And I feel, you know, stimulating as well. Last year, we all witnessed. Massive arguments, disagreements, discord, protests and demonstrations. In relation to the newly enacted Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. I noticed that most of the people who were opposing CAA did not have much of an idea as to what this law was comprised of. Sorry to say that. And they merely got carried away, I would say in a way, with the chorus. But, you know, I do respect their viewpoint as well. But I oppose their arguments, claims, contentions, beliefs. As I find nothing wrong with the CAA, whether from legal or constitutional perspective or even moral principles. According to me, it is a positive law and not restrictive or prohibitive in any manner. Nor is it, you know, prejudicial or discriminatory. It is on the contrary an enabling law. You know, enabling law for those who are oppressed in a way. Let us first understand the relevant provisions of the CAA. Don't read CAA in isolation. Read it, you know, in conjunction with the passport entry into India Amendment Rules 2015-2016. And the Foreigner's Amendment Order 2015-2016. Under the Foreigner's Act 1946. And the passport entry into India Act 1920 and rules and orders made there under. So it's a whole package of laws. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and the notifications which were brought about in 2015 and 2016 into these statutes and rules which I just mentioned. Have provided Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis and Christians as well from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Who are compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and who entered into India on or before 31st December 2014. You know, without any travel documents including passport or the, you know, validity of any such documents having been expired. Not to be treated as illegal immigrants. Not to be treated as illegal migrants, beg your pardon. And to be eligible to apply for the Indian citizenship by virtue of registration or naturalization under the Indian Citizenship Act as the case may be. And on grant of citizenship such persons to be deemed to be citizens of India. From the date of their entry into India. And the law also enables that the legal proceedings if any against them in respect of the, you know, illegal migration or citizenship would stand closed. Now, ordinarily the Citizenship Act lets a person apply for citizenship by naturalization. If the person meets prescribed qualifications including, you know, that the person sort of must have resided in India for the last 12 months, as many of you would know, you know, and for at least 11 years, you know, out of the preceding 12 years. Now for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The CAA reduces, mind it, the CAA reduces 11 years requirement to five years. Yes. Now, that's the core of the CAA in question. The critics have attacked the CAA mainly on the ground that it is unconstitutional for it is discriminatory and violative of the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Which extends not only to the Indian citizen, but it also extends to the foreigners residing in India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that, you know, the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Now, admittedly, many of you would know that the settled position of law in so far as Article 14 is concerned is that it only permits laws to differentiate between groups of people if the justification or reasoning for doing so caters to a reasonable purpose. That has been laid down in various judicial presidents. Now it is alleged by many experts that the CAA violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution as it provides differential treatment to illegal migrants on the basis of what? On the basis of faith, that is religion and on the basis of their origin, that is the nation they belong to and so on. But the two being faith, religion and origin. Now, so everything boils down to the test of reasonability, which means unassailable logic, unimpeachable rationale and immaculate reasoning. In fact, the most significant ingredient of public policy making, which includes, you know, any form of legislation is the legitimacy of the need to introduce a particular public policy or let us say legislation. Laws are not introduced and passed in democracy illogically. We all know that. At least that is the implied assumption, you know, unless proved otherwise in a constitutional court, you know, the law is passed with some logic and reasonability. However, here I am taking an honest, an honest of proving that it is reasonable CAA and is constitutionally valid. That's the honest I'm taking on myself, even in the absence of there being any worthy argument. I feel there is there is no worthy argument against CAA except the chorus, because I feel that the most of the arguments against CAA are sweeping. You know, I mean, you would say you would see in even in TV studios, it's sweeping presumptuous and based on the alleged future design of the establishment that the establishment would actually eliminate a particular segment or community of people. As a public policy propagator, you know, I need to prove, primarily, I would say three aspects of legislation to prove that CAA does qualify as a reasonable law being in conformity with the constitutional mandate, including article 14 in specific. First, I need to prove the existence of a legitimate mandate with the legislative body that is the parliament to enact this law. Second, I need to prove the genuineness of its objectivity. And thirdly, I will need to prove CAA qualifies and meets the test laid down in the judicial precedents from the past and in the present in respect thereof. Now, let us start with the legitimate mandate ground, whether the parliament actually had the mandate or not to pass this law. Well, the right of citizenship in India has had commenced only on India's independence. Remember that the British rule provided for no such right. Pre-independence era had, you know, the British Citizenship and Alien Rights Act of 1914, I think, which got repealed in 1948 or something. It is a matter of fact that Indians did not have any law on citizenship when they got independent, when the India attained independence. There was no law of citizenship. The constitution of India, as embraced and passed by the constituent assembly, included articles 5 to 9, which laid down as to who were to be the citizens of India, who were the Indian citizens at the commencement of the constitution. Now, Clive Maxing my argument on the first ground. Now, article 10 of the constitution provides that the Indian citizens shall continue to be so, subject to the provision of any law that may be made by the parliament. So, they will continue to be so, whoever is in India. So, clear mandate was granted to the parliament in relation to the, you know, to the continuance of the right of citizenship of people who were living in India. Now, not only article 10, the very next article, if one was to read article 11, expands the power of parliament to regulate the right of citizenship. Article 11 of the Indian constitution, I mean, if you read unambiguously, unambiguously enables the parliament to legislate on the matters of acquisition and termination of citizenship of India. Yes, article 11. So, there is a specific provision of category mandate in favor of the Indian parliament to legislate comprehensively on the domain of citizenship. And that's what parliament did in 2019. Now, here I would also like to extend the collaborative evidence from the debates, you know, which took place with regard to article five and six in the constituent assembly, you know, because I'm going through those debates these days because of the book which I'm writing. Now, Dr. B. R. M. Batkar, chairman of the committee, drafting committee of the constitution of India, had voiced difficulty in drafting article five.  He had said that it is not the object of this particular article to lay down a permanent law with regard to the con with regard to the citizenship of the country. The business of laying down permanent law of citizenship has been left to the parliament, he said. And as members will see from the wordings, he said the entire matter regarding citizenship has been left to the parliament to determine by any law it may deem fit. So that kind of liberty was given by the drafting committee to the members of the parliament. Now, Dr. Ambedkar, you know, did not stop there only, you know, he further said that the parliament may make all together. He said parliament may make a new law all together embodying new principles with regard to citizenship. He also emphasized that the provisions made by the constituent assembly, you know, for citizenship on the date of commencement of the Constitution were not meant to be permanent or unalterable, you know, and, you know, they were ad hoc for the time being. So that means that citizenship law had to evolve in future. Dr. Ambedkar spoke in absolutely unequivocal terms that when he said that, you know, it was not possible to cover every matter dealing with the conferring of citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution. That was absolutely impossible, you know, practically. And even, I would say theoretically, if there is any category of people who are left out, that is what he said. If any category of people that is left out, we have given power to the parliament to make provisions for them subsequently. So even the framers of constitution had anticipated amendments in that law. But not only Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, I would say even, you know, the prime minister then Jawaharlal Nehru in his speech in 1947, you know, at Parliament House, he had mentioned that we think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by these political boundaries because, you know, the partition happened and people were left in Pakistan. And unhappily, you know, they cannot share the present freedom that has come to us. They are of us, he said, and will always remain of us, whatever may happen. And we shall be sharers, he said, of their good and ill fortune alike. So people who are left on the other side of the border during partition were in the minds of our political leaders even then. I mean, they were considered as brethren who were beyond borders. Yes. So I mean, we have to historically examine this amendment Act of 2019. So consequently, you know, the Parliament brought in the Citizenship Act 1955, which provided for the acquisition of citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution, as I just mentioned. Now by the citizenship could be attained by birth, by descent, by naturalization, by registration. And, you know, there is a provision of termination as well in the Citizenship Act 1955. And 1955 Act has undergone many amendments since 1955. In 1957, in 1960, twice in 1985, in 86, in 1992, 2004, 2005, 2015, 2016, and now the legislation 2015 and then 2019. So, you know, the amendment has been happening with regard to the Citizenship Act for many, many years now. So why this noise about 2019 amendment? Hence, I move to ground two now, you know, which is to prove the genuineness of the objective behind the CAA 2019. You know, the partition, this is very important. You know, the partition of the Greater India in 1947 was the split of British India into two independent Dominion states, as we all know, the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The Union of India became the Republic of India and the Dominion of Pakistan became what? It became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And there was also People's Republic of Bangladesh. Now, it is a matter of undisputed fact that the partition was not based on any geographical or territorial claims. I mean, everybody knows that. There was no geographical or territorial claims involved in the partition. The division of two provinces, Bengal and Punjab was based on district-wise non-Muslim or Muslim majorities. The partition was on religious grounds. Let's accept it. Now, the partition perished about half a million people. It was sad and displaced about 12 million people along religious lines. Triggering devastating refugee crisis. There was large-scale violence and many Muslims from what would become India, who were part of India, went to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs who were in Pakistan, they fled to India. Many people were left behind, all their possessions and property to avoid the violence. And they fled to the new country. The vicious disposition of the partition generated an atmosphere of antagonism, animosity and suspicion between the nations, very sadly. And that afflicted the relationship even today, which is a sad state of affairs. Though the country was divided primarily based on religion, as I mentioned, after partition, India became a secular state. While at the same time, the other nations chose to become Islamic nation. The other nation chose to become Islamic nation. It's a matter of fact. It is believed that this led to an organized way of religious persecution of minorities in the neighboring country. There is some evidence as well with the government of India, which continues till date, whereby the minorities are forced to suffer socially and politically and ultimately dispatched to their native places. The influx of large people has visibly impacted India's demographic pattern as well. There is massive influx happening of people into India from the neighboring countries. Here, I will also like to cite the historical fact of the agreement between the government of India and the Pakistan government regarding security and rights of minorities. That agreement, you may all read, it's known as Nehru Liaqat Agreement, which was signed in April 1950, and forgetting the exact date, but it was in April 1950. The government of India and Pakistan had agreed then to ensure that minorities throughout its territories will have equality in terms of citizenship. There will not be discriminated, there will be full sense of security, their culture would be protected, their property and personal honor would be safeguarded, and there will be free movement into each other's country. And there will be freedom of occupation, speech, worship, with regard to issues connected with law and morality. So both countries made commitments to each other with regard to the minorities living there. Now, members of the minorities shall have equal opportunity with members of the majority community to participate in the public life that was agreed with regard to the respective countries. And they will hold political or other offices and they will also serve in the country's civil and armed forces. Both governments declared that these rights were absolutely integral, they were fundamental, and both countries would enforce them effectively. But non-Muslim immigrants continue to enter into India, that's another story which statistics show. The Citizenship Act 1955 regulates who may acquire Indian citizenship and on what grounds. A person may become an Indian citizen if they are born in India or have Indian parentage or have resided in the country for a particular period of time as is stipulated. But illegal migrants are forbidden from acquiring Indian citizenship. Yes, illegal migrants are forbidden from acquiring Indian citizenship because they enter into the country without valid travel documents like passport and visa etc. Or any other travel document. But they also sometimes come with valid documents but stay beyond the permitted visa duration. This illegal immigration is taken action, coercive action under relevant laws by deportation etc. But as mentioned that in 2015-2016 the government brought about notifications where they legitimized the stay in India of illegal migrants belonging to these six religions from these three countries. And also making them eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. So those coercive actions were prevented by way of those notifications which were introduced in 2015-2016 followed by law in 2019. But why is Afghanistan included in the amendment when it was not part of the partition? You must be wondering that. Well, it is a matter of fact that there have been multiple attacks against Indian interests in Afghanistan. We all know our assets have been hit in Afghanistan. The minority communities in Pakistan had actually migrated to Afghanistan from Pakistan during the pre-independence India. Now they are facing continuous atrocities due to their Indian origin. So who will protect them? A number of persons belonging to minority communities in Afghanistan have also come to India on account of religious persecution or fear of religious persecution. Who will come to their rescue? You tell me. No other country is willing to embrace them. But then why other neighboring countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar etc. are left out? That's another question people ask me. Well, it is an important note to note that the government of India has issued a standard operating procedure in 2011. Please look at that SOP of 2011 for dealing with foreign nationals in India who claim to be refugees. These guidelines are applicable to refugees from various countries including Sri Lanka and Myanmar etc. So there is a provision even for their aid. It's not that those countries have been left out. There is a separate set of SOP to deal with refugees coming from Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Now notifications of 2015 and 2016 from where 2019 was derived act were intermittent reprieve for the illegal immigrants that they are not prosecuted, punished or imprisoned or deported. While the CAA is a process of grant of citizenship based on the prescribed procedure and eligibility criterion. It's not run of the mill kind of grant of citizenship. It is not automatic. There will be an organized mechanism available with the government to verify the claims and authenticity of the applicants as to religious persecution in their respective countries. Nobody can come and say, oh I was persecuted so give me citizenship. There has to be an evidence which has to be led and government has to be satisfied. Now as per the SOP under preparation with the Ministry of Home Affairs may have been ready by now. The applicant who applies for citizenship under religious persecution, he has to give an affidavit where he has to prove that he faced religious persecution. There was a fear of religious persecution in any of these three countries and a detailed inquiry would then be conducted by the FRRO, that is the Foreign Regional Registration Officer or the Foreign Registration Office concerned. The facts are then verified on the basis of the application and affidavit and supporting documents and then a decision is taken and that decision is not final. Suppose if the decision is against then the person concerned will have a right to go to the Foreigner Tribunal which has been set up under the Foreigner Tribunal Act 1964. The CA does not add or amplify any provision against Muslims or for that matter against any religion or any religious group. It does not, just read that act. It merely facilitates settlement for a set of minority communities. Now it is amply clear from the discussion that there exists genuineness of the highest order in the objective behind the passage of CA. Yes, which is humanitarian and it finds its origin from the partition days as I explained to you in my preceding lecture, part, segment and section. So there is a history behind it. Finally, the third and last ground of judicial precedents, whether the CA meets the test of judicial precedents or not is supposed to be constitutionally valid and meeting the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Well, I would say that the CA quite easily fits into the test of reasonable qualification as settled by seven judge bench in the state of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar. It is a 1952 judgment. You will be able to pull out this judgment. There is utmost clarity and reasonability in the classification adopted in the CA as to the drawn distinction. If you will read that judgment, you will be able to make a very logical analysis as to the CA 2019 meeting all the requirements of reasonability. Article 14 enshrines no special provision to be made in favor of anyone and that all are equally subject to the ordinary law of the land. The positive conception of equality does not assume or suggest equal treatment minded of all persons. It does not. You know, there has to be distinction many times, but there has to be equality of treatment in dissimilar conditions where they exist. And classification for purposes of legislation also has to be has been taken care of. And one may also refer to another judgment in Ram Krishnan and Dalmia versus Justice S.R. Tendulkar wherein the exact connotation and extent of Article 14 was echoed or echoed as many people say. The court has held that the Article 14 forbids class legislation and it does not, but it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled. The court said namely that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential. Yes, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. You know, that's point one and point two, that the differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. So these two tests are fairly met by CA 2019. Now it was also observed by Supreme Court that, you know, a law may be constitutional even though it relates to single individual if on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others. That single individual may be treated as a class by himself. Supreme Court has said that. Now they have said that there is always a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the enactment. You can't doubt the enactment. There has to be a presumption of it being constitutional and the burden to prove, you know, that it is unconstitutional would lie on the person who attacks it. You know, he has to prove that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. So the owners lies on the attacker.  And one such principle I remember may not be the judgment, you know, where Supreme Court said that the legislature is free to recognize, you know, degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. So, you know, eventually, courts cannot step into the role of legislature. Legislature has to take a final call as to the, you know, objective of the legislation.  The Supreme Court has said that they may take into consideration, you know, matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of times and may assume that, you know, every state of facts, which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. So, I mean, any law cannot be examined as to its legitimacy in isolation just based on its text. It has to examine from the basis of its background as well. I can cite so many judgments of the Supreme Court. You know, I mean, I can go on and on where the, you know, courts have held that once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision bringing it, you know, within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution. The power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge, you know, into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternative. I mean, the court cannot sit over judgment over a law in terms of, oh, no, you have to, you have omitted that word so you insert that word as well, you know, you have omitted that community insert that they cannot. I mean, they can only ask for reconsideration of or reassessment or reanalyzing or further scrutiny of a particular law. The legislature is therefore competent to exercise its discretion and make a reasonable classification. Differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14. Now, additionally, you know, the CA has absolutely, you know, nothing to do with any Indian citizen in any way.  No, no statute, including CA can curtail or deny, mind it, no statute, including CA or whatever can deny or curtail the legal process of acquiring Indian citizenship by any foreigner of any category through naturalization. You know, which is Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, just read that, or through registration, which is Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1955, they continue to be operational. This law is purely to deal with some people who have been affected by religious persecution or fear of religious persecution in these three countries. The CA does not amend or alter it in any manner whatsoever the Citizenship Act. Foreigners right of getting citizenship. You know, as I said, it is basically dealing with only those communities who are minorities in the three nations. In 2014, you know, after the settlement of Indo-Bangladesh boundary issues, 14,864 Bangladeshi citizens were given Indian citizenship. Can you imagine that when their enclaves were, you know, incorporated into the territory of India? And thousand of these foreigners, you know, out of these almost 15,000 foreigners, thousands of them were Muslims. The CA is a compassionate piece of legislation which seeks to provide, you know, a manner of relaxation, I would say, in the nature of MNST. You know, to specific communities from the specified countries with a clear cutoff date due to persecution on the ground of religion in light of the undisputable, in light of the undisputable theoretical constitutional, theocratic constitutional position in those specific countries. So, you know, you cannot, you know, by virtue of being part of a chorus start attacking CA 2019 without understanding the whole history, objective and purpose behind CA 2019. I'll take just couple of more minutes. The CA does not, you know, impinge upon any existing right, I may reassure, that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment, you know, and further in no manner whatsoever, I would say, you know, it does not seek to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any Indian citizen. Just read that piece of legislation once again 2019. It does not do that. And, you know, further the existing regime, you know, for obtaining citizenship of India by foreigners, I'm repeating again, of any kind of, you know, foreigners coming from any country is untouched by CA and remains the same.  You know, including from these three specified countries, you know, not withstanding whether they belong to minority community or not. And it has been affirmed by the central government, you know, that as per the Citizenship Act 1955, all foreigners, irrespective of their religion, living in these said specified countries, or even other countries I would go a step ahead to say, can legally migrate to India. Yes. And subject to obviously, you know, fulfillment of conditions as laid down in the Indian Citizenship Act 1955. So my assessment in conclusion I would say is that CA 2019 has the controversy with regard to its legitimacy has been blown out beyond proportions. It is very important for some responsible people of the society to carry out a deep orientation with regard to the understanding, the correct understanding of 2019 and spread that orientation extensively amongst the Indian diaspora. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Actually, you are from your session what I understood was that we should not be sheep people, we should not go with the herd and we should have a particular understanding of what is happening and not blindly follow what the certain group of people are protesting. Right. So this was an outstanding and enriching session for everyone I must say. Thank you. Sir, your words brought us so much clarity and solved so many doubts and queries. I'm certain that that our audience is as appeased by the session as I am the upper mission Sir I would like to ask you a few questions. Sure. Yes, sir. So what do you think that communication of this I could have been in a better way that public does not get instigated and create that it does not create a misunderstanding. Fantastic question, you know, and this is something you know which I have been propagating for almost a year now, and not only with regard to CA 2019. I mean with regard to any law for that matter, you know, whether it be even the recent farms bill, you know, I feel that, you know, I'm not going at the back of the legislation. I'm not questioning the right of the legislature, the majority party to pass the law, but I'm definitely propagating as the question itself, you know, has an answer in it that whatever law is passed by the parliament, especially those which affect larger people and where some questions have been raised, government should form a committee or if not committee a group of, you know, some experts, eminent people who could, who should carry out presentations, orientations, explanations, and perhaps lectures to explain the, you know, impact, scope, significance, nature, and the whole intent, you know, of the law, not at those forums which are not accessed by the public at large, perhaps, you know, going around the nation as a whole, or coming through some medium, which has a maximum reach to touch upon the masses, you know, and that's what I'm gathering that, you know, people have massive misunderstanding. There is a huge communication gap between the, the, the, the, the government and, and the people, you know, who this law is going to govern. So, so it is important that the link of communication should be strengthened, furthermore, so as to address these issues of misconceptions, misapprehensions, and, and misunderstanding. Yes, sir. Thank you so much, sir. Sir, what I gather is because in India's population, most of the population of India's population is uneducated. So they are just following what others are saying. So that is creating even more mess and chaos. Sir, moving on to the next question, sir, as you said that the reduction of the time period from 11 years to five years has been done acting upon this act. So why do you think it has been done that why the cutoff date is set as 31st of December 2014.  So based on the, the, the number of people who had in who had sort of, you know, walked into India over a period of time, you know, they, they felt that it was important to sort of legitimize their presence in India, because the corresponding several laws provided for their serious prosecution and deportation. But on the basis of evidence and intelligentsia, what the government had, they felt that these people were in no position to go back to their country.  And this cut off date had relevance purely based on the people who are already present in India. Now, henceforth, obviously, you know, the there is already law in place with regard to, you know, you know, applying for Indian citizenship under the process of registration or naturalization, but they wanted to sort of legitimize the presence of those people who were already stationed in India. And if they were to be not allowed shorter period, there was no other way but to prosecute them. And that prosecution would have led to their imprisonment or their deportation, which was practically impossible, because these people had not come to India with some ulterior motives. They had come to India for shelter, because these people were literally driven out of their own home countries, and why they were driven out because there is a history of 1947, you know, at that stage they chose not to come to India. At that time they had an option when Greater India was partitioned, they had an option to come to India, meaning their, you know, forefathers or their fathers, but they chose not to come assuming or thinking that they would be safe in the country where they chose to be, but they were minority there and they were persecuted or if not persecuted, they remained under constant fear of persecution. So they came to India and, you know, a via media was adopted to adopt them as Indian citizens. But I don't see there was any sort of political agenda. You know, how could there be any political agenda because you are not giving them citizenship automatically, you know, they have to file several documentation to prove that they are victims of religious persecution or fear of, you know, religious persecution. Indeed. Indeed. Very well, sir. So some of the questions from the attendees. Firstly, I would be asking is that NRC was brought by the by the 2003 amendment to the Citizenship Act. Entire controversy with regard to CAA is being confused with NRC and it is being boiled into a political controversy. Don't you think there is no basis of any challenge? Absolutely not. The competence of the parliament. Yeah. Parliament for either CAA or NRC for that matter. Well, see, both are independent of each other. NRC is not something new. NRC came to have an NRC, you know, national register for citizenship came almost a decade back, you know, that measure was proposed almost, you know, a decade back. And that NRC is something which is there even in countries which are much below India, you know, it is it is it is a step of organizing your nation. You know, NRC is something which gives you an identification almost every developed country, every developed country, and most of developing countries have a national register of citizenship. That is, that is purely in the interest of your development, your internal security and your forwardness. And that has got nothing to do with CAA 2019. Though India has had introduced this measure, but the access is to have a register never took off, you know, and now the current establishment is proposing that by next couple of years, you know, they would be able to sort of consolidate the, you know, the register of citizen citizen, Indian citizens.  So, you know, this is something which is basically to also identify who are encroachers and trespassers in our nation, which is in the interest of law and order in the interest of internal security of the country.  So, NRC is something which is in the interest of the entire nation and the entire citizenry. Very well. Moving on to the next question from Miss Perena. She says that what are the key elements of identifying illegal migrants and do the Hindu migrants from the Muslim dominant countries that are enabled by the CIA to receive citizenship. Citizenship. Are they also subject to the to be regarded as illegal migrants even if they are staying as they are residing for more than five years. Yes, absolutely. See, if they any obviously you're talking with regard to these three countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, is it? Yes, sir. Yeah, see, as I mentioned to you that, you know, Hindu, the all these religious sections mentioned, you know, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians, etc. Now, if they have walked into India without any passport or valid document or with a valid document and valid visa, but that valid document and visa has expired, they will be treated as illegal immigrants, not withstanding what religion they belong to, even if they're Hindus, they are illegal immigrants, unless they are able to prove, you know, that they have been there for, you know, they qualify under CIA 2019, that they have been living in India illegally, purely because of fear of religious persecution, or they were actually persecuted there on the ground of their minority religion, and their faith, and therefore they should be granted citizenship. But if they fail to prove that, you know, and the evidence is not sufficient, they will be treated as illegal migrants. And for that, under the relevant laws, they could face imprisonment and deportation.  So likewise, India will also, India will also be taking that action, you know, unless those particular segment sections of people qualify under CIA 2019. Totally sir, totally agree.


The Burns Project was run by Comarthenshire Youth Support Service in partnership with local employer Burns Pet Food and Nutrition. Burns produces and sells pet food nationally, has local factories, a farm going produce, a community shop and cafe. The project offered volunteering and personal development opportunities for young people who were not engaged in education, employment or training as a result of personal difficulties. The young people learned about the world of work, developing employability skills in a fun, supportive environment by undertaking the tasks of a farm employee. The judges felt that this project was a good example of partnership working, having a positive impact on harder to reach young people. The Keredigian Outreach Team work with statutory and voluntary organisations such as Job Center Plus, Careers Wales, Training, HE and FE providers, social and health services, the police, the youth justice service and housing to promote inclusive, educative and participative provision for young people. Young people come together to socialise, plan and set goals together and participate in team building activities and residential that promote employability and workshops promoting personal and social development. The judges felt that this project opened up opportunities for young people in rural areas whilst helping them back into education, employment or training. Rootsd Opportunity is a partnership venture between Pembrokeshire Youth and Milford Youth Matters. The roll-on roll-off 8-week programme allows up to 16 young people at any one time and opportunities to gain accredited training and work-based experiences in a positive, engaging environment. The programme links the skills development of young people to the needs of the local businesses and organisations by working with businesses and hosting community events. The judges loved the strong community connections and the exit strategies put in place for each young person as they end their 8-week programme. Y Llywodraeth Cymru