Hello, everybody. My name is William Woodruff. The name of this talk is It's Coming from Inside the House, Colonel Space, Fault Injection with KRF. A little bit about me. I am a security engineer at a company called Trailabits. We're a small cybersecurity consultancy based out of New York, although we're about, I'd say, about half remote these days. In my day job, I do a combination of just sort of general security engineering, mostly on open source work, as well as government-funded program analysis research, mostly involving automated exploitability reasoning and automated exploit patching. But to get into, so this slide is kind of a lie. This talk doesn't really have two parts. This is to keep me honest about the stuff I want to cover. The first part of this talk is that faults are vulnerabilities, and I'll cover what a fault is, but for the time being, just accept that. I'll talk about why handling faults is hard and why sometimes given, like, the POSIX and Linux IO semantics, we can't even really faithfully handle them. And I'll also talk about why failing to handle faults leads to real security vulnerabilities in actual code. And then finally, I'll talk about why the cloud itself makes it easier than ever to write fault-vulnerable code. And interestingly, the cloud itself may be vulnerable to dangerous faults. And then finally, I'll sort of wrap things up with a demo of our tool, KRF, which I wrote over a weekend as a sort of a joke, and you'll see why it's kind of a joke. I'll show you guys how it works. I'll show you how to use it on your tools, and I'll talk about the results we've gotten from it in real security audits we've done. So to get started, what even is a fault? So in the context of systems programming, and specifically in the context of this talk, by fault I mean a well-specified failure mode for usually kernel-managed resources. So that'll be something like your paradigmatic E-access, E-perm, EIO, returned by a syscall when the kernel is unable to service your request. And as I'm sure all of you know, almost anything that touches the kernel can fail in some pretty well-defined way. So open can fail because you give it a bad path or because you want to have access to that path or because it's been interrupted by a single delivery or whatever fork can have the same thing. But also you have really rich failure modes where some combination of NLSAM and ACLs causes this particular path to fail that otherwise would succeed for a given user. Different file systems support different things and so you try to do an extended attribute and it fails. So rich things that don't necessarily correspond to intuitions about the ways syscalls normally fail can occur. One thing that I think is really important is to think about faults as part of the design contract for writing secure in heavy quotes C. It is your obligation as a C programmer to handle faults when they are expected to occur. You can't just sort of like swipe them aside as I personally am so frequently guilty of doing because hardware is fundamentally unreliable. Resources are always eventually exhausted and users always do eventually challenge their permission boundaries. And unfortunately for us handling faults is hard. And I think I actually, yeah I got my slides in the wrong order. Let's start here. Handling faults is hard. There's a lot of Unix baggage associated with like fault handling on Linux. 99% of the time the right thing to do is you want to like clear Erno or sometimes you don't have to. You want to make your call, you want to check your return value and then you want to check Erno. Historically that wasn't always correct because thank you POSIX 1990 whatever. Erno didn't used to be thread local. That's fixed now. Erno doesn't always have to be cleared. That's not an issue if you do clear it but because it doesn't always have to be cleared programmers are act inconsistently and don't clear Erno. You get inconsistent return values. Most of this calls return negative one. Some return null. Some return void star negative one. Some return some kind of error enum if you're inside of libc. And then finally because again it's a C and C plus plus there's absolutely no enforcement of any of this.  But also to make things even worse some faults can't even really be handled. So like I think some of you probably saw this. Recently there was like an Fsync gate thing with Postgres. Fsync will return, I think it returns success even if the dirty buffers inside of the kernel haven't been fully flushed in some cases. And so you'll end up with like silent data corruption inside of major databases that assume that Fsync guarantees the success of every previous sync. And that's terrible. Google's solution to this has been I think to side channel those errors with a Linux kernel module which they then broadcast via net link to some other service which then presumably like kills off that database process before it can actually get corrupted. There's a similar issue with like close and interrupt. Some of you might have seen Colin Percival's blog post a few years ago about how close two is fundamentally broken because if close two receives an E-inter the state of your file descriptor is no longer determined, so it could be open or close, and if you have another thread that is also interacting with your process and the file descriptor is closed it could reuse that file descriptor number. So if you then go to close it again you suddenly close the wrong file. And that's great, right, like who doesn't love that. And you know, it only took eight years but it came up with like galaxy brain solution. I feel bad cause I think it was case already said galaxy brain, but it was already in the slides. It took him like eight years to come up with this like crazy solution involves a cookies and a pipe and I think a select and you basically select on the pipe and like if a cookie comes out you know that nothing else has closed it. But like nobody's gonna do that, so it's broken. And then also just like enter in anything really. SignalFD has this issue and it's usually just safer to die but programs don't always just die and things go awry. But also, or not just also but I want, the reason I think this is interesting is because faults are, or at least I like to think of them as exploit primitives. So here is like a, this is code that probably doesn't occur in the real world but it takes the general form of code that does. So you have some kind of like tight event loop where you're reading some data from a user or data from some source, you're performing some operations on it and you're passing it to some like serialization or operation function. And so what you really have here is you have a heap spray primitive combined with a read primitive combined with some serialization.  You fault read and all of a sudden you're doing arbitrary serialization. And YAML in this case because it's C probably isn't huge issue but like you can imagine some serialization format that supports arbitrary calls or something. So that could be pretty bad. Unfortunately for at least my purposes, faults are rare. Even though normal programs perform on the order of thousands of billions of syscalls as a testament to the stability of our kernels, very few of them fail and even fewer than fail predictably. And of those ones that fail predictably even fewer than fail in ways that are sort of immediately obvious as exploitable. So that makes sort of like just going out into the world and trying to make things fail really hard. That being said, they might not be as rare as you think especially in our modern magical world of containers and namespaces and all these other things that are all of a sudden imposing very sensible limits on your processes in ways that the original programs weren't designed to consider. So one thing that I find interesting as I like I look at a lot of containerized software for my job. People often sort of like go willy nilly and just containerize this old program that was not written with sec-comp in mind and all of a sudden inherited resources like the conditions around inherited resources change. So all of a sudden like this program can't open files that it assumed it could open and that's a fault. That's something that actually could be predictably caused to fail by someone who has knowledge of the program.  I mean like users love to unplug random peripherals when they stop working. Users like to like plug their monitor in over and over or you know eject hard drives and do other bad stuff. Those things all cause faults. Current program is usually good and handle those faults in the kernel and then propagate them correctly to user space. User space programers then ignore them. So those are predictable sources of faults. And then similarly because of like the UNIX user model any program that runs at the same user by default can clobber other resources owned by that user. So you know pipes, shared memory, shared objects, things like that. So those are all things where like, if I'm running as one program under a user and that user has another program that's running that also talks via some privileged socket or whatever to the kernel or to a more privileged user that I can reliably cause a fault. And that program, whoops. Yeah, maybe I can escalate my privileges that way. But like I said, because they are generally rare from a vulnerability and resiliency research purpose perspective, I want to make them less rare when I'm actually doing like audits of programs. And what that means is that I don't actually want to wait for faults to happen. I want to make them happen. And so let's do fault injection. This is like a common thing. This is something that people have been doing since the 80s. And thankfully there are a ton of different really flexible approaches to fault injection from within like the Linux ecosystem. One that I've used a bunch for like programs where I have total control over the ecosystem is I'll just relink the program with faulty functions and wrappers. So like I'll have some LLVM pass that just does the right thing for me. And I'll have an output binary and it'll have faulty wrappers around my real functions. But this isn't always great because I don't always have the source. You also have LDP reload. You're all probably familiar with LDP reload.  And then finally we have dynamic instrumentation methods. And I'll go through a few of those and talk about why they're good, why they're bad, and why I went throughout I did. Which is not necessarily a good reason. But yeah, so here's a, to give some background, here's a contrived dynamic linkage scenario. And like obviously this isn't what dynamic linkage really looks like, but it helps for visualization purposes. So you have your curl binary and inside of main it calls curl easy setup. And curl easy setup has this well defined set of failure conditions. So it can either succeed and do curly okay or it can fail for some reason and return unknown option or whatever.  So what I wanna do is interpose my fake easy set opt and then apply some custom logic. In this case really just an RNG. It says, oh if the RNG is zero, I will bomb out with my unknown failure. Otherwise I will use DLSIM to just go to the real easy set opt which will then perform as normal business as usual. So that's really easy. This is like a great way to do very like first level full injection or any sort of like dynamic interposition of functions. Oh, blah blah, okay yeah.   One major one is that the year is 2019 and everybody loves go. Go is statically linked. LD preload doesn't work with static functions because it doesn't use the dynamic linker or static functions don't hit the dynamic linker. They don't work with syscall2 or ASM intrinsics because again you're not actually calling the function in libc that gets dispatched eventually to the syscall. LD preload is not actually interposing the syscall itself, it's interposing the wrapper which in turn causes other problems like unintuitive interposition. So as most of you probably know, open3 is really open at two in glibc. 4.3 is really cloned to. There's a dozen plus other ones and this usually isn't an issue in terms of actually causing faults but it does cause issues when you're actually trying to go back and triage your faults and figure out what actually failed.  I don't know about any of you but like every time I do it I break something. I don't like thinking about it. So not using it. What else is there? There's dynamic instrumentation. ptrace2 is a really awesome syscall but it's also really slow. So I should say it's awesome. There's a really good blog post by I think Chris Wellens on using ptrace to intercept syscalls as well as add a syscall within user space. But because you have to impose, I think it's a minimum of three ptrace calls for each syscall you interpose. You're essentially adding a 3x overhead for every syscall you make. And also because you're actually activating ptrace on your inferior process, you can't easily debug that process with another debugger. There's also dynamic instrumentation frameworks. There's DynamoRio and Intel PIN. I have used these a bunch. They're easy to use once you get to know them but their performance varies. Concerningly their correctness varies depending on the host you're on. And they take a long time to learn if you're not already familiar with them. And then finally there's like, as others have mentioned throughout this conference, many, many systems within the kernel for performing various forms of introspection, interposition, and hooking of syscalls. And I think every single one of these, except for maybe EBPF, can do what I want. But unfortunately I am a bit of a Linux kernel noob so I don't know how to use any of these. I know you can do this with SecComp with a SecComp Red Erno. I know you can do this with Kprobes somehow. And I'm pretty sure you could do with LSM hooks. I just didn't try any of those, sorry. But among those there's probably lots of like really good and fast approaches. And I'd have to talk to a bunch of current people I know to figure out how to use them. So the remaining question is can we do better than dynamic instrumentation and can we do faster? And the answer is yes with KRF. And so I should say this is a bad approach. You should never do this, but I did it. What KRF does internally is it takes your syscall table and it replaces the slots of interest with faulty wrappers. And if that sounds bad, that's because it is bad. Inside of those wrappers, if the call is targeted, it redirects to a faulty syscall that returns based on another dispatch table, some Erno. I'd auto-generate those dispatch tables based on the man pages, which say the set of acceptable faults for a syscall. If the call isn't interesting, we redirect to the normal syscall and on module on load, we just mem copy the original syscall table back into place and everything proceeds as normal. So from a bird's eye view, it looks like this. We have this like Rapsys read which performs some targeting check. If that targeting check is true, we perform the real sysread and if it's false or invert it, whatever, returns default. In reality, that would be a dispatch table that returns the real Erno based on another targeting check. And then inside of our module on it, we do a lookup of the syscall table and then we just swap out that NR read, which very bad, don't do that. But that looks like this from a high-level view. So what we really have is like our runtime function call which would be fread or Java Neo read or some high-level language call which trickles down to a glibc call to read three which eventually performs a syscall two to read two which will then hit our kref sysread. Our kref sysread will perform a targeting check. If it is not targeted, it will dispatch to the normal sysread. If it is targeted, we'll go to internal sysread. From there, we'll perform an RNG and either fault or one out of end times return success just that we don't completely destroy every program we run it under. And this code is actually all macro it up but it's no longer like this because we drastically improved the code gen. But what that looks like is just this. All we do is we kref define this break wrapper if it's targeted and we no longer use an LCG. Better, we use a better RNG now. But if targeted and some RNG, we perform our real or our fake syscall and then if not, perform our real one. And I mentioned that sort of glossed over targeting before but we actually support a variety of targeting strategies. So a few nice ones are targeting by user or group ID. So you can actually tell kref, I wanna fault every syscall performed by processes owned by this user or by this group. That makes it really easy to fault like a big family of processes that respond at once but there are multi process applications that have multiple sub users and so that has an extra hassle involved. We can also currently target by process ID or inode or really anything that's available within that current struct I'm exposed during syscall context. But my personal favorite is using personality two for this. Personality two is a syscall but there is a personality field inside of the task struct which is used internally to dispatch a different versions of syscalls based on a process's disposition. So you could run in theory a SunOS or a BSD process on Linux and have a dispatch to a version of malloc that is different. I think this is actually used internally to fix little page stuff for SunOS because I think SunOS has a valid null page. I might be misremembering that. But another nice thing about personality two is that children actually inherit it so we can actually just exec off and all of our children will trickle down that personality and correctly be loaded into this faultable state for KRF. And so this is how you use it. For 99% of you who are running like a kernel above I think 3.17, I think this is the one I need. It's as simple as cloning down our repo, make and make install and then make and smud. And then I'll go over a quick summary of each of these commands you use from user space to actually manipulate KRF. I should say please do not run this on real hardware. It is a root kit. It is a root kit that rewrites your syscall table in unsafe ways.  We use it to find bugs but it's full of bugs itself. So please do me a favor and do yourself a favor and don't do that. So from within user space we have these three commands. I didn't put KRF message up here because all you really do is just run it and it'll spit out logs. But KRF control can be used to actually set the parameters for the module. So that includes things like setting a list of functions that you wanna fault. So in this case I set read, write, open and close as my faultable functions. We also have a notion of profiles within KRF. So if you wanna default every single syscall that we tag as an IPC syscall. So that's like, I don't know, like sysv stuff. You can do tickpipc, you can fault an entire process ID. And also you can use this clear flag to just wipe out the syscall table state and return it to like a safe neutral state. And then also we have this KRF exec helper which all it really does is it sets personality, sets some rlimits and then execs off to make the process faultable under KRF. And you don't actually need that unless you're actually using the personality faulting mode.  You can just run the program as normal and KRF will pick it up. And I sort of like glazed over this before but does KRF actually work? And the answers are both yes and no. KRF, fine, so we've used it on our actual audits. We do a lot of audits of smart contracts as well as audits of code that interacts heavily with user space, basically just systems code. We have successfully defined vulnerabilities in native components during smart contract audits. We've also used it to find a service vulnerability or a weakness rather in Kubernetes during trilobits audit which some of you may have seen. And I'd like to give a special shout out to Bobby Tonek for doing that one because he wrote all of the instrumentation to make it run under Kubernetes. But also there are things about KRF that are not ideal. For one it trashes programs in unrealistic ways like your average read is not gonna fail but KRF makes the average read fail. KRF will make things that will almost never fail when the real world fail. It will find bugs that are real bugs in the sense that they are things that you should have handled but fake bugs in the sense that they will almost never actually happen. So that's something that we've been working on from a triage perspective. So right now what KRF does, it spits out seg faults and cordombs like nobody's business. And then we have this giant pipeline that I actually had an intern work on this summer. Triaging those cordombs and figuring out whether or not this is actually a realistic crash given like real world conditions. And they've made really excellent progress on that and I'll share some of their analysis work if you wanna come up and talk later. But thank you. That's it. Any questions? Have you looked at all the fault injection system in the kernel? It doesn't cover sys calls. Right. So it would be interesting to see if you could attach to that in some way or I don't know it wasn't mentioned anywhere here so I thought probably you've looked at it but I'm curious what you found when you were looking for it. Yeah, when I was doing the initial write I did take a look at it and the first thing I saw was it wasn't connected directly to sys calls. And so I might have incorrectly ignored it based on that initial apprehension but that is something that I definitely should take another look at. So you were saying you use an RNG to decide when to fault things but it looks like based on your targeting, what I'm interested in is is there a way to see that RNG with a predictable value so that you can reproduce the exact failure path and know exactly when the process is gonna launch at which index? Yeah, so we do support exactly that.  Okay. Yes, is it correct that most of the time or maybe all the time the result of this is a crash? Is that normally what you're looking for or could there be other errors that don't cause a seg fault but are still problems that need to be fixed? And if there are, how do you find those? How do you find out that it happened? Yeah, that is a really good question because right now our current triage system assumes that a seg fault or at least something that produces a core dump is tied to bad behavior. Whereas you're completely correct, a program could incorrectly handle a fault and go on and do something wrong internally without ever crashing. That is something that would involve possibly instrumenting the program with like LLVM or something to determine whether or not... I have a few different ideas there for handling those kind of cases. I'm happy to talk about that later. Should we go back to the, anybody else? What about faulting like coverage? Like sort of walking through a program faulting at different places? Yeah, that's something I thought about. It's not something that KRF currently supports. Right now it is like a haphazard random choice of syscalls. And as a result, you actually get pretty bad coverage because you end up faulting things early on in program execution which then cause unconditional abort. So I think the solution there would be to like... I've been thinking about ways to target areas of interest within a program and then defer faulting until that point. But that doesn't mean for a future investigation. Yeah, I think that I'm thinking the same type of thing that you asked and I'm wondering if rather than using random numbers you could say on the thousandth or 10,000, right? Because that way you get... If you do it with a random number you may not get deep into the program. Yeah, so I guess the demos didn't fully show but there are two parts, pieces of state or three pieces of state that determine targeting. There's the targeting mode which can be UID, PID, whatever. There is the RNG and then there's also a probability state. So I think the default probability is one out of 100 also targeted by RNG calls get faulted. And just based on like fussing with this thing in the real world that's produced some pretty acceptable coverage. But I think a better solution would be to have actual individual ratios for syscalls. So like fault to one out of every 10,000 reads or what have you. So that's like a future improvement. No more questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


Hi, so it's my first time in India, so that's really a nice way to get introduced to India. So I'm amazed by all the opportunities that out-of-home and digital out-of-home are representing for India. And it's really exciting what's going on, the conversations are very qualitative, people are questioning how to evolve, how to make out-of-home growing and I think that's really promising for the future. So really excited about what I heard in those two days.


I've heard that we need to use sunscreen. How much do I use? You need at least an ounce, which would fill your palm. Make sure to get your ears too. Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. I wouldn't want my ears to burn. Your sunscreen bottle says SPF 15. Here, you can use mine. It's SPF 30. That's the best kind of sunscreen to use to protect your skin from the sun. I thought sunscreen was sunscreen. I could have gotten a bad sunburn. Thanks for the advice. No problem, and limit your time in the sun between 10 am and 4 pm too. This is Maddie and Aiden reminding you to be sun safe. Brought to you by NDSU Extension and the North Dakota Department of Health.


I would like to welcome Reginald Eugene Williams to Video Oral History Project in the 1960s. I want to thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Rebecca. It's nice to be here. I'd like to just give you a chronology of the straits art in the movies and a chronology of all the events in the theater, including shows with the dead and Janice. Well, my name is Rebecca Nichols and I'll be moderating this event. Thank you very much. Let's start right from the beginning. Where were you born? I was born in San Mateo, California, fifth generation in California. Wow. My family is from Humboldt County. Wow. And I've been in the Bay Area for a long time. I went to Burlingame High School and college at San Mateo and graduated San Francisco State with the A in History. Wow. And what are your parents' names? My mom's name was Cynthia Edwards-Williams. My dad was Kermit Lawrence-Williams. And where were they born in California? Yeah, my mom was the daughter of a wire rope manufacturer, self-made millionaire in South San Francisco, had an industrial setting and she came from Humboldt County. Ranchers in Humboldt County that date back to the very first people that went to that county. So, if we went all the way back, fifth generation, where did the original, where in the world did they come from before they immigrated? Here, do you know? In a lot of ways, my mom was a little nutty and one of the ways was spending money on genealogy and, you know, for every genealogist you've got an opinion of course, we've got William's, so that makes this related to William McComper, ties who will, how long more, any of the famous Edwards' of course that were pilgrims and Puritans. So, I couldn't give you a straight answer to that. Sure. Well, fifth generation, that's a lot. Yeah, I know where they were. They were from North California and they're still there. Oh, they are. Wonderful. Wonderful. Okay, so I am going to bring you like a time capsule from your early birth to the sixties. Great. Here in the Hade Ashbury. I would love you to think back your memories of the sixties. Let's start with its early beginnings. Okay. I have a chronology that I've worked in to the straight.com, which is my website for the straight on the Hade, which is my manuscript. And basically, you probably hear recurring themes about early roots in the sixties. Well, 1960 is when I graduated from high school. And then in junior college in San Mateo, college San Mateo, I was the chief justice of the judicial council for three years. And during that time, other people in that turned out to be in the Hade Ashbury and in the scene later, like the bass player, Big Brother and the Holy Company, was Peter Album. Peter Album. And he and I and other people would collect behind his house in a little shed and puff the magic dragon. That's right. And one thing led to another and he took me to where his brother, who was also a famous, more famous at that time than he was, but an established musician that unfortunately died too early, brought and he was managing 1090 page at that time. Right. And so that's where I met a lot of the people and ended up in a scene kind of coagulating out of the folksy, which we've been following since we were kids in Norwich, Fox and the Hound, Coffee and Confusion, Billy Roberts and the drinking board when it moved out to Union Street. There was a whole very strong support group for folksy and stuff that was pretty much going on New York at that same time, but without the luminaries out here. Here we also had a kind of a beginning of the civil rights movement and it coagulated around Cadillac Road downtown and the rights of black workers and was very early in the 60s. In 1962, I was at a church over here on the upper Fulmore and to hear Louis Lomax, who was an author, a well-known black author at that time, telling people we ought to go to Washington DC and support Martin Luther King, so I hitchhiked across the country and that was in August 23rd and a month around that, around 63. And then when I came back and went back to being the Chief Justice of the Judicial Council and within a month or so, Kennedy was shot while we were at a conference at a Syllomark for student leaders that were collected from the junior colleges that were from all over the state, so I remember exactly where I was when that happened, everybody broke into crime. What are we going to do now? And basically, the effect it had was to make us more hardcore. It wasn't going to be a happily ever after kind of thing. The forces of assassination were reaching in and would continue, actually, to pull down victims either by conspiracy or by some casual coincidence. At that point, it really changed a lot of people's lives in terms of how we looked at authority and also this widening war that was happening at that time that was pretty much fit right into what I was learning about worldwide and U.S. imperialism and my graduate studies at seminars at San Francisco State. So it was easy to fall in line with the free speech movement over at Berkeley and hop on, you know, get over there for that. People's Park. Was it People's Park? Was there when PCN, the bus and all those people, it was the first time I'd ever seen them, did when we mobilized in Berkeley and marched on the Oakland Depot. And we're turned around by the Hell's Angels. But basically, there was a lot of people at that time that were coming together on both sides of a lot of these questions. Civil rights and the war, as it grew intense, the opposition grew more organized and intense. And I had documents with my friend. I grew up with a fistful of friends that lasted through high school and became more intense during college and after college. And actually, they were the core people that ended up running the State Theater. Also in 63, a little later on in the year, I wasn't going to San Francisco State at that time, but I went to San Francisco State with friends and sat in the aisle and heard Alfred and Leary talk for an hour about what they've been doing for hours.  It was part of a set and setting theory. And it stuck in my mind, you know. So when the whole thing kind of blossomed for one reason or another with the mind troops arrest in the park and you try and get the toothpaste back in the tube and all of a sudden you develop a genre I'd never seen before where the music and the people dancing and the lights and everything became one thing. And it was a new way of life. It really seemed to us at that point that it didn't matter what was going on out there, we would just do our thing and we would eventually end up with legalized pot, you know. People would dress like we do and we look around and we really invented a lot of the styles that we usurped by Madison Avenue and other places where they left the content on the floor, the civil rights aspect, the anti-war protest and kept the sideburns for a while, the puffy shirts, the bell bottoms, the style and even a lot of the lingo. So we were really, everywhere you looked at San Francisco State on the street, I described and if I was going to read anything, I described that when I found the Street Theater Chapter, which is basically a walk down Hade Street. Love to hear about it. In that time, it's the next chapter to go online. Basically the point was at that point the film war was kind of spreading out. The people that lived in this area were basically, except for students from UC, they were Eastern European families and the Poroski Palace up there was one of the main centers that kids would go to get 50 cent Poroskis and pockets of meat and so we could leave very cheaply back then, you buy a pork chop for 25 cents. So there was a lot of things that made it easy for younger people to say, I'm just going to live the way I want to live. So where do you live? North Beach and Skyrocket and the troop. So as the mine troop thing developed, the very first time I went there into the film war was to make sure I did, because I had gone down to the warehouse and there was a line around the block and I couldn't get into the first mine troop benefit. I heard about it too late. So the second one, which was at the Film War bill that found the film war in the 1930s dance hall, 150 a week and rented it and they were doing the benefit and they went up about four in the afternoon. We should come face to face with Bill Graham and he said, oh you can't come in here. And so he did his Bill Graham thing and I turned around and left. I made it back that night and I witnessed the whole thing and basically the troops festival. I went every single night too and I had a lot of my ideas from what light shows should be from watching them and I was inspired to do that myself and coincidentally one of my old friends who was in the theater and also went to grammar school with me, Luther Green, introduced me to Bill Graham as he was introducing me to Tony Martin who was his friend and an artist at Mills College who had been the one settled in on to do the lights at the Film War and just like Don Winkler did the sound effects, Tony Martin did the lights. At the beginning at this point it was a very exciting forum and with a wife and young baby and Bill deciding after a few months that you know you don't need to give that much money to the light show, we've got to give it to the band so he started strangling the light show wages so Tony just started treating it like eat lunch at the job so he'd sit there and he'd just bag lunch while rock and roll music was going on and he's much more of an artist like a lot of the people Bill Hammon included are that ended up doing lights. I basically would get psychedelicized and like the movement, like the color flowing around and very soon I demonstrated a talent with being able to make patterns like fire dance or molecules rush or whatever it was that we keep track of time with the bands. Sure. And Ron Colty the night of Saturday night he was the manager of Quicksilver and they were playing with Paul Butterfield we should make that about March 31st the end of March beginning of April at the film war when they brought them in from out of town and by that time Tony was just not interested he let me just step right down front and just walk out. I demonstrated that light is faster than sound. Five or six plates I could have a sound and a shape and a movement. You did five six plates at once? Oh yeah. I do three and I think it's a lot. Five six? Yeah. Double handed. Yeah, both sides. Amazing. As a result Ron Colty liked what I did and he had just gotten more and more offers from promoters and other people booking events up and down the coast. He said we're going to take the light show with us so I ended up doing events in Hayward or Berkeley or... They have Clover opening for them in those days? Clover? I remember Clover was coming along a little later but basically I did San Jose with him and Merced and it was great going out on the road doing lights for the great for them and all of them. But that happened that week and then at the very next week I was walking down Hay Street seeing this blend of people that lived in the neighborhood at that time and it was easily 60% boarded up windows. We're talking 65, 66 somewhere now? Yeah, exactly. In 65 it probably reached the bottom. It was all vacant boards, broken glass, plywood over the windows all the storefronts covered up. Right. Slowly in the end of 65, about the same time we'd blossom and pull on away one by one the stores would start being rented out in the bank and the people that he was with were above the psychedelic shop there and movies and psychedelic shop and all those people. Basically it seemed at that time that we were in an idea of community so it gathered momentum. Very soon we were there. I walked down the street and I just saw this amazing building on the corner in 1912 it was built as it turned out Bauteville Theater. So the acoustics in it are perfect 1500 capacity, they're balcony with about 40 rows of seats on the stage to the underneath the balcony and the acoustics were perfect and the lights were shut off and I saw the note saying go to the hardware store I went to the hardware store, got the key and went around in there with the borrowed search flashlight and the mold had taken over and it was under water and a lot of the stuff that deteriorated but as it turned out the electricity had been gutted out of the building for its copper content there were two previous tenants in the 60s in the theater itself and one was an Abyssinian type church a black church and the other one was a gay radio station a gay congregation center so a lot of the people because Luther just came up with the name straight basically because it sounds like hate and that's what the movie theater was that we did that so we were friends with the dad who just lived right up the street and I was good friends with Rock and Danny so we were rehearsing at the theater during the day and Danny still in touch with him and started ripping out seats because we envisioned a big dance floor there and the 40 foot high screens and the entertainers and the home balcony with the light show so that's basically my friends Hillel we talked to and Bill his brother who was my actual partner and we were the managers of the theater and nobody actually owned it and it ended up just it was an unincorporated partnership is what it was basically and we started chucking and driving with no money and Luther came up with a friend from back east that was a plumbing contractor and we had the money to buy the materials and people just started dropping in to help out fantastic artists who did tie-died napkins that covered the lobby just incredible hard people changed the whole building into psychedelic green and gold and vibrating and we started there right away in the first month we had a benefit down at the Alpalon and we did lights for Grateful Dad and we went to my core to raise money for the street and then we got involved with Chet at that point because he came to us in a very short period of time when he was doing both diddly and wanted to borrow money so this fellow from Buffalo Jim Wilson who was the one who was representing the money guy became the DBA guy and started wheeling and dealing and gave Chet a thousand bucks which on the weekend that he both three times in all over the town killed himself so every weekend for thereafter I had the pleasure of going to the Fillmore and getting the money back fifty dollars at a time that's how I got to no-bill ham and hang out with Chet quite a bit so it was real serendipitous yeah I'd love to this is a wish longer piece but I want to capture some stuff and make sure we don't leave out what are when the straight theater opened between the time it opened and closed give me a few of your great memories of something of things that happened there the Grateful Dad were there in and out they were there with our christening they played the opening of the theater they came in for them in their own history we had them that was the last time they ever played it in public as the original Grateful Dad and then when they came back in six weeks that was the first time they had the two drummers so we had the last of the old dad and the first of the new dad and Janice would come by all the time I don't beat since public college the bass player and the big brother and she fell quiet on there and nurse her bottle of southern copper and just spent hours hanging out and then she'd move on down the street and hang out with somebody else but one night when she was singing for a benefit for us they never took the money from us they just played and let us keep the money but it was like the she was whispering from the stage and you could hear all the way in the back and it was like the angels came down around the whole west it wasn't just the light show there was some truly magic moments when the Native Americans came and did their day area thing there they really helped cleanse the theater from the equinox of the gods which Kenneth Anger had run at the theater and they came and did a big pow wow they came after Kenneth Anger they did this big drum thing and the ceiling went off and the hall took off like a UFO that was one of the best moments and Steve Gaskin and his Monday night class was one of the it's not in that chronology every Monday he did the Monday night class and he was sitting on the floor before he moved out so that was always what kind of class did he give? it was called the Monday night class and it was basically he didn't want to do it on Sunday because it would be too much like he was the preacher basically it was a new age preachy and it was a dance school as well and I love Caitlin Huggins and she and Annette Rice started a modern dance school there because the dance school was a dance school it was with a fellow that I mentioned previously from Buffalo the poet who ended up being the president of Street Theater Enterprises found that the Masonic Hall next door served great purposes for offices and that sort of thing that was down straight towards the park was attached to the building to the west and it became later the I-Beam but it had large studios and so Caitlin and the family started the dance school and then a year later when we opened the theater on the corner we passed the health inspection all the inspections but we couldn't dance because it was bad at the neighborhood and so we said well look we're a dance school we're not a dance hall it's semantics we got a lot of information about the dance school from some of the other from Luther Green and her whole kinetic thing but she was there quite a bit and it was making a big story about new dances probably if this video is watched tomorrow 50 years from now or 100 years from now this is archived in the library it's for not-for-profit it's for children's children and they punch in Reginald Eugene Williams Reggie I sense a feeling you had in this period I sense a passion about what you were doing and I have found from doing many of these interviews as well as being themselves it almost was a calling, a passion people became a family things coalesced and you had to take sides even the hip independent proprietors hit with the Merchants Association Merchants Association would let them in even though they were falling down and deteriorating they still didn't want new blood in there so it was always that give and take it's a synthesis antithesis what kept you going and do you still have some of that in you now? oh yeah I'm still in the show business I'm the IATSE for 30 years make movies and produce and manage what's the future? oh yeah I have my light show that I continue to build and it has meaning and I know what I'm doing now when I was filming back then I had no idea what an aperture was or what it really did or how lights and now I'm pretty much no lighting by Kelvin so you're equipped in a second nature? I don't have any good equipment but I know how to use other people's equipment I know what you're supposed to do and a young person was watching this 50 years from now how can you inspire them considering what you've been through what you're doing now and you're still going? well I think that that's a good opportunity here to say that the whole story like I said earlier was you served by Madison Avenue the parts they could sell the rest they denigrated and made the bad guys so now the anti-war protesters are the bad guys and the war mongers and the Marines are the good guys and so this is what people can do for themselves is believe in what they're doing regardless of what's out there and I see it was the dawning of the age of the quarter it's gonna be silly about it and basically the whole thing hasn't happened yet but it's turned into little kernels all over the world every little town you go through Orville or has there even Tucson, Arizona is the fourth avenue and basically there's the sea to spread all over the world but it's still not understood and the intellectual part of it if you all the jokes, the snide remarks about if you can remember it you weren't there basically means you got in mind this rod I don't think so I was a historian I held on to pieces but I still have a strong oral tradition and think that people should talk about it and share it eventually yeah it's a great story to be told to me it's like the 13th century in general I think this would be a renaissance totally relate the poster art all my friends yeah I'm gonna have to show you those I would look forward to seeing it I would like to know if I had a net that I could throw you and you could capture your favorite moment what stands out in your mind I know you have many, but grab one yeah I could say I can't say the human being without getting my wife upset so it must be I'll give you two, okay it must be being married in the street theater by Bishop Skilman being wedding in the theater and pictures and all that basically a lot of the films they took to revitalize my images of certain things so maybe I prefer them more than the ones I can't remember to the human being was a great time the day they made Acida illegal how long they wanted to call it the love pageant that it had more to do you can make it legal but now you're gonna have to do something about it basically they did was change people's minds but now it's a dangerous drug their minds are dangerous I think that people have to filter and believe in what they believe in by research on your own and you don't just get fed dogma by politically paid journalists I just want to thank you so much for being here you have not seen The Last of Us and I know we haven't seen The Last of You but the 60s and the Heat Ashbury is a giant puzzle with lots of pieces and you have a big part of it so we want to thank you so much for being here and I know you have a whole lot more stuff you would like to show us so we're gonna go film some of this in a few moments okay thank you


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspeyscasefrakes.com doing a quick little random number block randomizer for these three teams right here for picker team 10 Which is sold out coming up in a separate video That's how it works if you're not familiar with it There are the names right here, and there are the numbers. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it four and a four hard eight for each list Six and eighth and final time after eight. We got Yervin down to West Four and a four eight times with the numbers one And eighth and final time hard eight four and a four after eight times. We've got nine down to six All right, Yervin you have number nine Brian with five West with eight Ryan with one West with zero zero gets any and all redemptions for these three teams right here including one of one redemptions Ryan eight you'll still get live one of one Tyler Brenner with seven tj with three Sean with four Jared with two and west with six Let's sort this by column b Let's center those up right here and coming up in a separate video the break itself. We'll see you for that. Jasper's case breaks.com


Well, it's so sick because South American and Central American countries are actually very religious and very Catholic So they're going into religious countries with almost missionary fervor to go and try to Make these countries less religious and again, there is no separation of church and state. It's a fabrication. It's a fiction It's not in the Constitution. It's made up by secular humanists It's derived from a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Convention Of course, we should have church and state mixed together our founding fathers believed in that we can go through the details of that They established literally a church In Congress anyway separate issue the point though is that this is acting like a religion No, isn't it if they're if we live by their own false premise of separation of church and state then Why on earth and how on earth would why would they want to go bring this belief to other countries? I mean they're they're almost kind of as if it was the 1400s and they're sending missionaries to the new world filled with Despotic nihilistic atheism and humanism. I mean, what's the thought process behind that? That was far-right propagandist Charlie Kirk Incorrectly claiming that there is no separation of church and state now We'll talk about why he's obviously wrong But he's not the only far-right fruitcake to make the same exact argument in fact a sitting member of Congress Lauren Boebert made the same argument recently Representative Lauren Boebert says she is quote tired of the long-standing separation between church and state in the United States Adding that she believes the church is supposed to direct the government quote I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. That's not in the Constitution It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does Boebert said earning a round of applause from the audience Now the audience she was speaking to was a bunch of fundamentalists So of course they were clapping like seals but to disprove their arguments all you have to do is Read the Constitution and I'll make it easier for them Let's put it up on the screen in the very first sentence of the First Amendment It reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion now It doesn't explicitly say the words separation of church and state and they're correct to point out that that phrase in particular Came from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association But the establishment clause legally achieves the same thing it creates a firewall between church and state and for good reason In fact, this is deeply rooted the separation of church and state is deeply rooted in our nation's history to borrow a phrase from them So prior to US independence the Church of England was the state religion for many southern states It was the church that they were forced to not just subscribe to but pay taxes to and a lot of people thought that That was unfair rightfully so because not all of them believed in that particular doctrine many of them were Lutherans or Presbyterians or Jewish so they thought that it was wrong for them to have to pay taxes to a church that they didn't even believe in Therefore quote after independence there was widespread agreement that there should be no nationally established church The establishment clause of the First Amendment principally authored by James Madison Reflects this consensus the language of the establishment clause itself applies only to the federal government Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion all states disestablished religion by 1833 and in the 1940s the Supreme Court held that disestablishment applies to state governments through the 14th amendment And that is the most common widely accepted interpretation of the establishment clause That's not me saying. This is how we should interpret it. That is the most common historically accepted interpretation but Charlie Kirk rejects that and he in a way is violating his own textualist judicial philosophy But I mean he's inconsistent these people don't care about anything but executing their agenda and they will do that by all means Necessary now lucky for Charlie Kirk We have a Supreme Court that seems hellbent on destroying that crucial provision of the Constitution and You know because of that he kind of answered his own question because remember in that video He talked about how it's a little bit bizarre that atheists are proselytizing effectively and doesn't that kind of make them a religion too? so let me explain why atheists and secular humanists are Supposedly proselytizing in a way that we see religious people spread their beliefs It's because religion poses a danger not just to humanity and civil rights and civil liberties But to democracy itself and all of you are kind of being a little bit too brazen lately I know that you're emboldened after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade But you're giving up the game and you're giving us all the more reason to proselytize and spread secular humanism and atheism because of the danger that you pose in fact I want to share a guest essay written by Catherine Stewart for the New York Times This is someone who's an author who studied the religious right for more than a decade and she wrote about how Christian Nationalists are emboldened and since they've been emboldened they are now Explicitly becoming more violent in their rhetoric and they put this on full display at this year's road to the majority policy conference quote The intensification of verbal warfare is connected to shifts in the Christian nationalist movements messaging and outreach Which were very much in evidence at the Nashville conference seven mountains Dominionism the belief that biblical Christians should seek to dominate the seven key mountains or molders of American society Including the government's was once considered a fringe doctrine even among representatives of the religious right at last year's road to the majority Conference, however, there was a breakout session devoted to the topic much of the rhetoric on the right invokes visions of vigilante justice This is about good guys with guns or neighbors with good eavesdropping skills Heroically taking on the pernicious behavior of their fellow citizens among the principal battlefields will be the fallopian tubes and uteruses of women So evangelicals in the United States have not only embraced this once fringe doctrine of Christian dominionism Ie Christian nationalism, but on top of that they've amped up the violent rhetoric because they view themselves quite literally as Soldiers in God's army. Therefore they have a divine mandate to rule over all of us By force to impose God's law on all of America because God has chosen the United States of America And if we're standing in the way, then God has allowed them to crush us. This is their belief There were people at this conference who are powerful Rick Scott was there former president possibly future president again. Donald Trump was there referring to domestic enemies Who of course they have a divine mandate to conquer So people like this are precisely why we have the separation of church and state It's not just because religion is dangerous and it harms individuals and it's counterfactual But because religion especially when it comes in the form of Christian nationalism quite literally poses a threat to democracy itself So when people like Charlie Kirk and Lauren Boebert talk about how really there shouldn't be a separation of church and state and that doesn't really exist Well, what they're telling you Simultaneously is that they're also against democracy because to rule By an iron fist with a divine mandate from God means that you don't need to take into account What people in a pluralistic society might or might not want you just do what God wants you to do That's why these folks are so dangerous. That's why the separation of church and state is crucial and we have to fight to protect it because It's not something that is always going to be a thing in the united states the supreme court in their last term chipped away at it In a multitude of ways So even if we once thought this is something that is constitutionally protected even if it's right there explicitly in the constitution Well, that's not going to stop these zealots from just Reinterpreting it in their own extremist way So that's why it is important for atheists too as Charlie Kirk put it Prostlaties because if we just let these religious zealots have their way There'd be no democracy. There'd be no civil rights. There'd be no civil liberties. They're just be theocracy Do you enjoy watching independent news shows like the humanist report the rational national and the majority report? But oftentimes youtube doesn't deliver our videos to your subscription box. Well, I've got a solution for you It's called the opt-out app available right now in the ios app store coming soon to android Opt-out is an app made by and for progressives where they take all of the most popular independent news shows and they put them in One convenient location You'll find all your favorites on there like the humanist report the rational national the majority report And the app is updated multiple times per day So your news feed is constantly up to date if you enjoy watching independent media. This is the app to get download it today YouTube to become a member because Mike's doing a great job Getting to watch his videos before everyone else is tremendous Many people are saying this Join today folks. You won't regret it


Okay. Thanks, everyone. I think we're ready to resume with the open session. We're going to start today with a presentation of one of the working groups of Council. There are four working groups of Council, and we use them for a variety of purposes. One of their requirements is to make periodic reports to the full Council. So today we're going to hear from the Genomics and Society Working Group of Council. And the presenter is Dr. Malia Fullerton. She is the Chair of the Working Group, as I mentioned before. She's Associate Professor of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington. She trained in population genetics and then transitioned to research on ethical questions involved in biobanking and clinical genetic testing. Malia is a co-investigator on the CSER and Emerge Research Projects that are ongoing at UW. Malia, there she is on the screen. You hear us okay? Yep, I can. So why don't you go ahead with your presentation? All right. Thank you so much, Rudy. And good afternoon, everyone. I apologize for not being there in person. Let me get my slides up. Yes. Thank you. It is my great honor and privilege to be presenting on behalf of the Genomics and Society Working Group that I currently chair. And I hope you're spending a few minutes today talking to you about some of the topics that we have been discussing over the last year and a half since my predecessor, Steve Jaffee, gave a presentation to counsel. So just as a reminder to folks of what the mission of the Genomics and Society Working Group is, and sorry, I'm just going to see if I can move my, there we go. It's to provide the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research Advice on short and long-term planning and priority setting with regard to genomics and society activities at NHGRI, particularly as they relate to the ethical, legal, and social implications research program. The Working Group, which meets, has met virtually the entire time that I have been involved. I think it used to meet in person once a year. We meet in the fall and we meet in the spring and then we have a longer two-day meeting, typically in the spring. We provide input to program about LC research priorities, discuss with NHGRI staff the appropriate, thinking about the appropriate balance between investigator-initiated and program-initiated research, and advise and counsel on the best use of limited budgetary and staff resources. That's the overall mission of the Working Group. We have wide-ranging and, I think, very helpful discussions. For the purposes of my presentation today, however, I'm mostly just going to focus on one area where we've been having extensive discussions. Sorry, let me see if I can, there we go. Basically LC research priorities, and so I'm going to be spending some time describing to you about some of the recent research priorities that we have been discussing as part of a Working Group. Less, I think, by way of giving formal recommendations to counsel is more to kind of give a sense of the kinds of topics and concerns that have been rising to the surface. Here is just a brief description of the current Working Group members. I serve as chair, two members of the advisory council, including Kyle Brothers, who's there in the room with you, as well as Lisa Parker, who are also members of the GSWG. In addition, we have Shiniko Kaliar, Marcia Mipi, Gabe Lazaro-Munoz, Holly Pie, and we are very fortunate to have just invited three new members to the Working Group, just literally days ago, including Stephanie Russo Carroll at the University of Arizona, Beth Terini at Children's National, and Jan Wojcik from Johns Hopkins University. So we have a wide range of ethical, scientific, legal, and social science expertise that advise the group. It's a really wonderful group. I'm very happy to be working with them. So the last time the Working Group reported out to counsel was a while ago. It was in May of 2021. When my predecessor, as I mentioned, Steve Jaffee from the University of Pennsylvania was giving our report and at the end of his presentation, he ended with sort of three primary kind of summary points that really GSWG has been focused on thinking about challenges at the intersection of science and society, particularly as they had arisen in the context of the pandemic. And then, of course, the conversations abroad, national and indeed international conversations about racial justice that occurred in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, that the Genoese community has more work to do in its reckoning with the legacy of race and racism and that the LC community is in particular well positioned to assist the broader Genoese community in identifying and addressing these challenges as they touch upon genomics. And I wanted to sort of begin there at the beginning of my presentation because I would say that much of what we have been now talking about in the intervening period with the GSWG is trying to think about ways to assist and ensure I in thinking more concretely and operationalizing some of these goals of reckoning with the legacies of race and racism and broader concerns of health equity and social justice. So I will briefly touch on five emerging LC research priorities that we have been discussing and indeed have come up again and again as we have discussed various research programs that are either already supported by the NHGRI or that are moving into kind of future research support. Those include an emphasis on and thinking critically about social determinants of health and their inclusion in genomic research, broader and more in consistent attention to health equity as an outcome of genomic research, structural factors and social justice, thinking about gene and environment interaction research, which of course was the topic of a major meeting earlier last year as well as then thinking about genomic applications beyond health care. So I'm just going to briefly kind of talk about each of these areas in turn. So the first LC research priority that we've spent, I think each of our meetings since May 2021 talking about to some degree or another is thinking concretely about the role of LC research in the context of thinking about social determinants of health, social determinants of health, of course, is a sort of term of art, which describes measures of social, broader, social and cultural factors that may come into the measurement of genomic interactions and genomic effects with disease, but invariably involve the measurement of non-genomic factors. Inclusion of social determinants of health, which I think are broadly recognized as being extremely important to thinking about the ways in which biomedical risk factors lead to adverse health outcomes. Inclusion of SDOH in genomic research is clearly first and foremost a scientific issue and thinking about how to do that well and with methodological rigor. It's a scientific question, but there are related normative and ethical questions and ethical, legal and social implications that can be brought to bear. So in the course of our discussions, we have spent some time thinking about the ways in which not only must social determinants of health routinely be brought into genomic research, particularly research involving the interrelationship of genetics with common complex diseases. It must involve understanding from the LC perspective, it must involve understanding how and why studies of common complex traits need to be avoiding a tendency towards genomic determinism, where we understand that genes and non-genetic factors clearly are in a multifactorial way, contributing to disease outcomes and how best to design research studies to prevent an appearance of or misunderstandings with regard to genomic determinism. They necessarily and ideally would involve ongoing and extensive community interaction and engagement, not least because communities that are affected by particular adverse health outcomes are in many ways the best position to understand which social determinants are likely to be of the highest relevant relevance to particular health outcomes and will also be extremely well positioned to understand how information about the joint effects of genomics and social determinants can be brought to bear with particular health interventions and public health strategies. And it will also we have talked about involved developing sustained partnerships with researchers who have spent most of their professional lives, probably not caring about or actually having any direct experience thinking about the role of genomics in health outcomes, but have extensive experience in measuring social factors, social determinants in a population context, and those will involve, as we have talked about in the context of our working group, bringing other people in. Heart and parcel of the social determinants of health is thinking critically about the ways in which populations are understood and described, categorized and measured, and we have discussed in the working group the forthcoming National Academies Report on population descriptors, which we imagine will identify related methods and challenges that can be considered and interacted with in the context of the ethical, legal and social implications research program. So that's the first LC research priority that we spent quite a bit of time talking about in the working group. The second research priority that we have spent time talking about and really kind of grappling with our concerns with regard to health equity. Unfortunately, and I think probably everyone there would acknowledge many of the questions that have and continue to be asked about the role of genomics research in the context of population health and population health equity, many of those questions that we can ask today and concerns that have been raised, particularly in the last two years, are similar to those that were asked decades ago. It's like, what is the proper role of genomics information and genomics knowledge in the context of intervening on these large scale population health disparities that are pervasive, that are a huge concern, both to our nation as well as internationally. And action is clearly needed now to ensure that the genomic studies that we are doing and that the NHGRI supporting generate knowledge that it's going to benefit all patients and communities, including patients from diverse, underrepresented, medically underserved backgrounds. While a big part of the health equity conversation and one that I think has received a great deal of emphasis and importance appropriately so there at the NHGRI is enhanced workforce diversity. While that is important, the Genomics and Society Working Group has acknowledged that genomics cannot rely solely on people from underrepresented groups to be the ones that kind of bear the weight of figuring out how to break down research and translational barriers. This needs to be a concerted effort across the board. There are many ways in which these kinds of concerns can be addressed. One idea which has come up in the context of our working group is thinking about the ways in which more explicitly criteria could be brought into the program review process that would encourage investigators to explicitly address the potential for particular lines of investigation to tackle, extant and worrisome health disparities and to be explicit about the ways that health equity can be advanced as an outcome of particular programs of research. And so this is one area in which I think the Genomics and Society Working Group has has had some thoughts in this regard about review criteria as being important. It could be a matter of ELSI scholarship to kind of think more explicitly about what those criteria might be, how and when they would be applied, how we would measure whether the expectations or the kind of promises at the beginning of the research process, whether the outcomes match the expectations at the beginning of research and how to do that well in ways that will responsibly advance health equity. A third research priority, ELSI research priority that received a fair amount of discussion and conversation in our working group, has been the ELSI research priority of focusing on structural factors and social justice. Racism, structural racism and discrimination is a pervasive and important concern across all forms of biomedical research, including genomic research, and these concerns about structural factors and structural racism continue to be important challenges, both for the genomics community as a whole, as well as for ELSI researchers. In response, the ELSI research program have reorganized their kind of research areas to not only include genomic medicine and thinking critically about the ways in which genomic research studies are organized and disseminated, but also to include new areas, including social cultural, attention to social cultural values, as well as thinking about the correct pursuit of and implementation of genomics at the institutional and system level. This could be addressed in a number of ways, but what we have acknowledged in the context of our discussion is not only is sort of reorganizing the portfolio to highlight better the fact that research in these areas would be welcome and indeed is encouraged, but really the genomic society program and the ELSI research portfolio needs to be doing more and exactly how to do this, I think, is an open question. Maybe we can have some discussion about this to attract scholars from fields who explicitly study structural inequities and have this particular normative, ethical focus, not so much on beneficence, not so much on sort of autonomy and sort of things that were kind of bread and butter of ethical enquiries, such as informed consent, but actually thinking beyond to more kind of population level concerns and thinking about the concerns of justice and how we can best ensure that that that genomics research is not inadvertently underwriting or supporting racist points of view, that there can be no difficulty about research, programs of research and inadvertently being taken to underwriter or support that there are primarily deterministic genomic underpinnings for differences across social categories, such as race and ethnicity. So but there are people who do this for a living. There are people who have not traditionally been in the ELSI portfolio and we could do a better job of bringing them into our research and encouraging them to apply for grants and to become involved with our genomic investigations. Along these lines of fourth ELSI research priority, Genome is of which I think is more concretizes some of these ideas is thinking about extending the genomic research into more of a consideration of gene environment interaction. There was a very successful meeting held jointly with NIHS last year thinking about this and one of the outcomes we spent some time talking about it with the Genomics and Society working group, realizing that a lot of what we have focused on in the past are individual risks and benefits and making sure that we're not harming people as we're inviting them into the research process and and hopefully that they are participation and research will ultimately result in individual benefits. But environmental sciences, it's trying to do something slightly different, is much more usually focused on the community level. And as we move in invariably more into gene environment research and genomics moves more into the population health arena, we have recognized that the ELSI program will also need to be thinking about population level ELSI and learn from the practices that have been successfully pursued already in environmental studies, recognizing that groups that have previously been harmed, minoritized or abused in research are just as concerned, if not more concerned about harms to groups as to individuals. The ELSI program can help both in reorienting normative research beyond individual to population level research research ethics questions, but can also help guide the robust inclusion of community members as researchers. This could and probably indeed will have to involve new funding models, which will help to bring community members in as full research partners into the research process, involving them at the earliest stages of study design, implementation, as well as dissemination, because research that is conducted either in a health care setting or in a population setting. Ultimately, we want the fruits of that research to be sort of taken up and used by communities to benefit them. We're going to need to have community who are involved in that process directly involved in helping us to figure out how to do that well. And ELSI researchers who have some bona fides, I guess, with regard to doing work and working closely with community might be very well positioned to help with some of that work. Finally, a last research priority that we have spent some time talking about in the in the working group is thinking about the role of ELSI scholarship in the context of genomics projects beyond health focused applications and some of the ones that we have spent a little bit of time talking about are socio genomics, directed consumer genetic testing forensic applications. It is appropriate. We have argued indeed essential for the ELSI research community to engage with these non health applications simultaneously, although some of the in particular applications of genomic research to social and behavioral outcomes have been particularly have generated a lot of concern. We have also the discussion has focused on taking care not to let easy villains distract us from broader structural concerns that we argue should probably be the primary focus. ELSI can work and should work and support the rest of the genomics community in combating such misinformation. So that is what I wanted to share with you today. That is just a kind of a very high level overview of the kinds of topics that we've been focusing on in our working group. Folks there at program can can also provide their own comments about the ways in which our deliberations have been helpful in terms of decision making for the purposes of council. I think the three conclusions that I would like to leave you with is that just as was emphasized by Dr. Jaffee a couple of years ago, we continue to feel that ELSI research has an important role to play in guiding efforts to address ongoing important need to be addressed and ameliorated structural inequities and genomics research and genomic medicine. Priority needs to be given increasingly to population level analysis. This is true of genomics, but it's also going to be true of the ELSI research program, including sustained attention to responsible incorporation of social determinants of health, working to involve and include community in research at all levels and explicit consideration of health equity as a defined outcome of genomic research programs and that part of this work of necessity will probably involve broadening ELSI expertise to include new perspectives that have not necessarily usually been involved in genomics and society work funded through the Institute, but easily could be and indeed it would be very value added to have those folks as part of our research teams. So that is what I had to share with you today. Thank you so much for your attention. I'm very happy to answer any questions that you might have. I will stop sharing my slides. Thank you. Questions for Malia, Steve. Hi, Malia. Thanks so much for that presentation. You presented a number of possibilities and I think it would be useful to think about some sort of prioritization if possible to think about what can be actionable, perhaps. Obviously, one of the things that you mentioned was getting people who are experts in areas of research related to social determinants, health and equity into the genomic space. I could see that as something that possibly could be done a little bit more easily by having some specific workshops or some other types of activities. But have you given some thought about what types of things can can really be done quickly and effectively, obviously, money's a question. But I'll leave that to Eric and his pocketbook. Thank you. Yes, thank you so much, Steve. I really appreciate that question. I think it's an important one because I do think we realize that these research priorities are quite broad. The idea of a workshop is an interesting one, and I think that certainly could begin a conversation where we could be attempting to bring in people who are working more traditionally in health disparities research and social epidemiology and sociology, political science, for example, a workshop of that kind would be helpful. However, I would say in the context of our conversations, what we regard as being most helpful would be thinking about ways to either design calls for standalone investigator initiated projects or perhaps to be thinking in a more concerted fashion in the ways in which LC scholars have been embedded into other research programs of ways to encourage research, which would deliberately bring in people as co-investigators and would call for expertise, other particularly population science and public health expertise that is not typically been top of mind. I mean, we've had some success, I think, in bringing in folks with more implementation science interests, but of course, implementation science is very much focused on trying to get genomics applications into the health care environment. But as we move into more of a public health space, we'll need similar kinds of expertise that are I don't think those folks would fall in the implementation science bucket. And that's a little bit of what I think that in the portfolio is trying to be signaled by the focus on structural factors and institution level, system level impacts is a great question. Thank you. I'm not sure I'm not sure we have a specific recommendation, but that's my top of my response. Yeah. OK, I see Nancy Cox and then Tim and then Peter. Thanks, Malia. That was a really well organized presentation from your group. And I really appreciated hearing the the ways you're thinking about the future here. I think one of the one of the concerns is as we move to involving community more in our science, we had to face a bit of burnout in the community members that have served broadly in our activities in the Medical Center at Vanderbilt and making sure to diversify that community component. And enlarge it really to handle the number of people who now want to do studios with community members to do activities that include community members. And so I think it would be great to see a focus from your group in kind of best practices for creating larger community board activities. So it's not to burden people who who are willing to represent and and advocate for their communities. I think, you know, including appropriate payment and so forth is one thing, but it's just it's also really just figuring out how to make these committees and memberships large enough to basically serve all the needs of of an institution that wants to bring community members to the table. So it's a it's a complicated thing to make sure that we that we hit the right note. And I think your committee, your group is is in a good position to develop best practices around this. Thank you for those comments, Nancy. I couldn't agree more. I think that we definitely need to be kind of re I would argue, possibly going out in a limb here, but I will turn to Lisa and Kyle and others that we need to be kind of rethinking the ways in which we engage with communities. And this is part of the call of really thinking about community members, not just as advisory entities that we go to on an ad hoc basis and even with compensation for a limited amount of time, but actually more long a model, which has been pursued successfully by colleagues and other disciplines of if not community based participatory research, certainly community well, community engaged research, where you have community members coming into the research process at the earliest stages and letting you know what their health care and broader public health priorities are. It's it feels uncomfortable to us in genomics because it basically gives over some of the direction of our research programs to community partners. But in my experience, with that level of participation and buy in, you have people who continue to be willing to show up and continue to participate because they see directly how the research might benefit their groups. It is a complicated issue. It's one we can certainly spend more time talking about in the working group. Tim Reddy. Thank you so much for the presentation. I was wondering, you mentioned collaborations with NIH, NEHS briefly, and it seems like a lot of the areas that we're talking about here might align very closely with investigators over there. Have you thought or do you have some ideas on what you see as the opportunity or the path forward there and how to work with them or leverage those skills? Yeah, thank you for that. I am the chair of an advisory group. I do know that the NHGRI and the NEHS, you know, hosted a fabulous workshop that Dave Kaufman was very heavily involved in. I actually had a chance to participate. It was sort of, it was very eye-opening for us on the genomics side, because, for example, things that are sort of bread and butter for us in genomics, LC community, such as return of research results, just take on a completely different tenor when you're doing research in an environmental science context with communities who are concerned about community digmatization, but at the same time are anxious to receive any kind of information. There's been a fascinating conversation about about benefit and actionability and how to think about that. And the ways that we think about actionability in genomic research are very different from how they're thought about in environmental sciences. So I think there's tremendous work to be done. I believe that there is some in that workshop was a harbinger of future collaborations. I hope that will be the case because I think that there is very important information that genomics could provide about what I will describe as sort of pockets of vulnerability in a community health context and it's going to involve an entirely different skill set, I think, in some ways for genomic investigators. So I don't I'm not the right person to ask. I don't quite know what the future plans are, but I think I think it would be wonderful if the two institutes could figure out ways to to partner to support research programs. Yeah, that sounds fascinating. It seems like some great opportunities. Yeah, thank you. Linda, did you want to follow on that point or a new question? Hi, Malia. That was a very nice presentation. I really enjoyed it. I wanted to ask about the all of us project because I know one of the one of the real goals of that project has been to engage more underrepresented populations. So my question is, have any new insights or cautions been derived so far from all of us to your knowledge? Well, I think it's an interesting question. Thank you for that, Land. Great to see you. And all of us, all of this research program, in part because it's out of the office of the director, as opposed to, you know, a genome focused project, although it has a huge genomics component, has not been a major topic for us in the Genomics and Society working group. I think that they are very interested in LC questions. They have, of course, been doing some very extensive work with interacting with tribal communities, for example. There are people there in the room sitting around the table that I know probably know more about that than I do. I think that the the program has been spectacularly successful in bringing in people into population based research, including genomic research that have not traditionally participated. And so from that point of view, I think it can count as a success. Where this becomes interesting and how it relates to some of the points that I made about health equity is I think it remains an open question. The project is in a very early stage, of course, but it remains an open question about whether the degree to which the inclusiveness of that project is going to result in population health outcomes that are going to benefit the communities that have been brought into that research process. That has been the promise. That is certainly the hope. I think it's too early to tell at this point. But I do know that the project has made very good use of community partners throughout their governance process, and they also have a very open way of making people aware of the kinds of research that's being done. So they are prioritizing transparency. I think they're still working out the issues with indigenous communities and involvement in that project. That's my understanding. I appreciate any update from anyone who knows more. But I think I'm not sure that totally answers your question. It hasn't been a major topic for us, but it's certainly something we could talk about more in the future. Peter Robinson. Thank you, Molly. That was a great talk. One of the things I'm wondering about is so the issues you rose were our common to essentially the entire biomedical research enterprise. And so if there's a genomics project about a specific organ, typically that would not be funded by this Institute, but if there's something that's specifically genomics, it would. And so I'm wondering of the issues that you discussed. Did you identify some that are specific to genomics and not just general medical LC issues? All right. Thank you for that. That's a very interesting piece of feedback. I do think that all of the topics that I briefly alluded to in my presentation today are all we are always thinking about them and they are always inflected in the context of genomics research projects. So, for example, a lot of our discussion about social determinants of health arose initially both from concerns about sort of a structural racism and structural determinants, but also because one research program funded by the NHGRI, the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Research Program, at least in its in its early information about stage four, had suggested that social determinants of health were going to be included with other risk factors in the in the context of the genomic informed research assessment. And so we had questions about how that was going to be done, whether it was being done, what what what kinds of social determinants would make sense to include in the context of a genomics informed research report that includes polygenic risk scores, for example. So so there's one example. Some of the questions about sort of population descriptors, thinking about race and racial categories as social entities in the context of genomic investigations, which are primarily focused on, of course, genetic ancestry and the ways in which people can mistakenly attribute biological outcomes to social categories of race. This is a particular concern for the genomics research community, which is part of the reason that the population descriptors work of the national academies is so essential and important. So so there's another example. I think the gene environment example is is already kind of self-evident. So I take your point that these are broader concerns that are not simply concerns of genomic research, but every single one of those topics that I refer to involve particular ethical questions around the pursuit of genomic knowledge. And so I do think that they are directly relevant and pertinent to the work of the Institute. Hal Dietz. Thank you, Molly. I found that to be a very informed and inspiring discussion. The one of the underlying themes, though, seem to be determinants of disease rather than social, structural or environmental determinants of good outcomes in disadvantaged populations and vulnerable populations who by many accounts should be having poor outcomes. Is there enough emphasis on looking to these disadvantaged communities as a source of inspiration and solutions, rather than as simply as a source of a population to be studied for their unfortunate circumstance? Yeah, thank you for that. I think that's such a wonderful point. I do not know enough about particular programs of research. I mean, I certainly believe that resiliency as a population phenomenon is crucial, and this is another reason why, in my experience, and we've talked a little bit about this in the genomics and society working group, when community members are involved from the earliest stages of research, they begin asking the same kinds of questions that you ask, which is, why are you focusing on what's wrong with my community and why don't you focus on what we're doing well, what's going well, the people who, despite something like April one risk factor for kidney disease, seem to be doing fine, for example, those kinds of concerns and questions about a more positive valence are the ones that communities, I think, definitely are in favor of. And I think it's a great question. And I apologize if I sort of went the way that I think we usually do, which is thinking about genetic determinants of disease as opposed to genetic determinants of health. But I do think it's an important question. I'm not completely sure of particular programs. I'm not sure that we discussed any directly in the working group. Others there in the room might know better about the possibility there. I think certainly there's potential to to ask and answer those kinds of questions, particularly when we're thinking about gene environment research and gene environment interactions. But yes, thank you. It's a very important point. Thank you. Laura Beirut. So thank you for the wonderful talk and just this discussion, I think, is showing just how how much interest there is and how salient it is. Nancy Cox and I just returned from this World Congress on psychiatric genetics and it has a large international group with it. And what I was really struck with is how many companies are jumping into the field of genomics and returning results. You know, one of your colleagues on the working group, Gabriel, was presenting there and talking about pre-embryo selection for psychiatric illnesses. You know, I met someone from Brazil who's starting up their company to give genetic results for educational attainment. And so what I'm seeing is just the businesses and companies are really racing very quickly and faster than we are moving regarding, I think, the ethical issues. And I kind of don't know what to do about that, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Yes, well, I'm so glad that Gabe was there. I mean, he's been doing very important work in this area. Yes, I think commercial players in this space. I mean, it's of course very complicated, right? Because I mean, we all would like the fruits of genomic research to be where appropriate, responsibly translated, and that is going to involve public-private partnerships, for example. And but the kind of premature, for lack of better words, sort of uptake of some of these technologies and suspect applications like the use of polygenic risk scores in the context of embryo screening are very worrisome. There are investigators, including Gabe, who are already funded to do this kind of work. These are issues that we have begun to talk about in the Genomics and Society workgroup, and they are areas where I think it would be appropriate for LC scholarship to be encouraged probably more with a legal regulatory valence, because of course, a lot of these applications are able to move forward so rapidly, basically in the absence of any kind of regulatory oversight. So and I may be going a little too far. So apologies to people who know better. But I do think I do think that these are areas and questions that are of interest to us, rapid commercialization, and then the ways in which commercial partners work with public data, public reference data to advance their commercial goals is another very interesting area. We have not spent as much time, at least during my tenure with the Genomics and Society workgroup, talking about these these concerns. But I agree that it's something that we could spend more time in our work thinking about. I don't see other hands, but I'm going to invite Lisa Parker and Kyle Brothers as members of the working group, if you have any other comments. You know, I think Malia summarized, I mean, all of all of our work and conversations, very succinctly into five themes. I think you hit the highlights. I think the final theme that you mentioned of moving beyond what we have thought of as the strict disease and health space to look at other uses of genomic research findings or genomics and the commercialization the direct consumer does begin to get at this final suggestion that we need to be mindful of the promise and the perils of premature public-private collaborations or of private entrepreneurial advantage taking of early results and educational attainment, for example, where that falls in terms of being a health factor. I mean, obviously, well, it's a much broader discussion, but I do think that that fifth theme is something that touches on what what Laura was raising. Kyle, I'm just going to respond briefly to House comment. I think it there is a need to focus on positive outcomes and that works really well with methodologies that you can flip the other way. So Geos is great because you can look at protective factors, but a lot of this work looking at environmental factors, outcomes of various sorts that are related to health or maybe other dimensions of wellness. There's so much track record working on diseases that there's a lot still conceptual work, design work, design development of measures that still need to be done to do the kind of work that you're talking about how. So it is work that needs to be done. But in some ways, we're still at the ground floor of doing such such work. And there really needs to be a lot of fundamental work done to get there. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Thank you, Kyle. Yeah. All right, Malia. Malia, thank you for really beautifully organized and well delivered presentation and thanks for sticking around to answer all the questions. Yes, of course, it was my pleasure. Thank you so much again, everyone, for your attention and I good luck with the rest of your meeting. OK, thank you.