Boy, I know the Lamar Jackson haters. They would love this idea Team keeping clean. What's going on is engraving here with another video and today boy. Hmm. Glenn-Clock radio They had on a very special guest In former dolphins and saints GM former chargers and Seahawks executive Randy molar and He proposed a plan for the Ravens to put in place to where they prepare for life without Lamar Jackson by Drafting another quarterback that will give them options that would possibly give them some leverage with this whole contract negotiations or actually lack thereof but Before we break it down. Let's listen to his breakdown of this plan Well, here's my thinking and let me just say this nobody's trying to replace Lamar Jackson. That's not the idea That's not that the theory in what I'm talking about. I just know this having set in the GM chair for many years I made my worst deals I think most GMs would concur with their own Plights when you don't have options when you have to make a deal for X amount of dollars that you're nervous about making I just think the league that team building that taking care of your own team is Best served when you have options. So my thought so First he talked, excuse me about his experience as a GM and he said that he made some of his worst deals When he did not have Options on contracts where you're nervous So he sort of implied that the Ravens are nervous about giving Lamar Jackson this contract Who knows but he said he made his worst deals When they were nervous about giving a player money, but they didn't have any options So they didn't they didn't have any leeway But let's let's let's continue If they can find a way to have a consensus in their own building on an option at quarterback and again I'm not talking about taking one early, but round two or three may just be the right time this year to take one I think it makes some sense to him. I think he gives them some some leeway I hate nobody can force Lamar to sign a contract if he is not willing to like what we hear and read Right, he's not ready to do that. You just got to look out for your own franchise and I think this does that It just gives you an option one might help you in negotiating But two it's just gonna help your team move forward a little bit with an option that doesn't exist currently So He talked about Draft not drafting a quarterback early said the Ravens they wouldn't have to draft the quarterback early But I think in rounds like two or three they could do it Let me know if I'm wrong. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way Maybe I'm looking at it from a way that maybe I'm just not getting it But wouldn't if you have a quarterback right now You have a quarterback under contract this year and he's obviously a franchise quarterback If you draft another quarterback again, you have a quarterback in place But if you draft another quarterback in rounds two or three Wouldn't that still be considered drafting a quarterback early? To me it would especially when you have a lot of other holes on the roster that are much more important than quarterback for you right now So anyway, but he talked about this would give the Ravens options like a sort of a backup plan of adjusting case And it could possibly give them some leverage Help out with contract negotiation. He said they can't force Lamar Jackson sign a contract. Oh, they can't they can't do that No, he will sign when he's ready when they come to terms and who knows the reason that he doesn't want to sign right now It could be because he could feel like a last year numbers weren't so pretty And since they weren't so pretty Ravens are gonna want to negotiate off of those numbers and be like, hey Since I had my first major injury, they're gonna want to negotiate off of that and I'm like a I don't think so. Let me go bet on myself this year. Let me go prove myself this year and let me then then we'll talk Again, that's my thinking Lamar Jackson hasn't said anything. But by his actions, they lead me to believe That's what it is that he wants to bet on himself He wants to prove to the Ravens why he deserves that top dollar I mean, I think he's already proven it But yeah, go ahead and prove it a yet another season. Go do your thing. I am mad at you But as far as drafting another quarterback, what would that do for the Ravens and Lamar Jackson? Well a couple of things well for the Ravens He did mention how you got to take care to franchise first You got to put the franchise first. You got to take care of your team first and We know that any franchises like that is to franchise over the players it's They put themselves first and that's business. It's nothing new. It's not a secret anything like that But that would be them staying ready so they ain't got to get ready now with that If you think about the possible worst-case scenario Lamar Jackson goes out there and plays this year and he doesn't resign next year and He he left for whatever reason whether the Ravens traded that they franchise tag them and traded them Or he just left in free agency. Whatever happened if he left You run some very big risks with that very very big risks one you have That's a lot of pressure on your next franchise quarterback that guy who you drafted in round two or three and Because you've had your first franchise quarterback was Joe Fleco and That was your first ever franchise quarterback the guy that you knew Every year week one who was suiting up, you knew what you had in him He of course delivered all those playoff wins and the Super Bowl Joe Fleco did his thing. He was there your first franchise quarterback and Now you had Lamar Jackson at and at that point They would have had a Lamar Jackson and you saw everything that he's done for this team. This team was headed Nowhere fast, but he brought them back to life in an instant an instant Lamar Jackson is prime time TV He like really elevated the Ravens big time big time So he's given you so much So quickly and of course you still want more we want more playoff wins and eventually a Super Bowl But for what he's done so far, it's like whoa like we love everything that Fleco did But for this transition has been a very nice transition from one Flacco to Lamar a lot of times A lot of franchises when they transition and from one quarterback to whoever's next it can get a little ugly It can get very ugly, but this transition it hasn't been ugly at all So if they were to do another transition You run the risk of it being ugly You run the risk of this next quarterback just Not being so special I mean he could end up being special, but he also could end up not being special but Whatever you go to and and I mean again, they're back ups and it's no disrespect to them But whatever you go to next from a Lamar Jackson. Oh It's almost not gonna be fair for that person to step into that situation I mean we saw Tyler Huntley we saw Josh Johnson is We've seen it times RG3 So we've seen it and it's it's a there's a drop-off. There's a significant drop-off and we see that But if the Rays would have draft a quarterback, they run a lot of risks. Hey, it could work out But it also could not work out and that's part of business in business. You you run risks You do some stuff where it's like, oh, I don't know if this is gonna work But hey, I'll try it, but you usually run risk when you don't have a plan when when you when whatever you normally do it's just it's not working and In this case with Lamar Jackson in the contract situations Usually when Ravens want to negotiate with somebody usually that person negotiate that player negotiate and they'll make some stuff happen But Lamar again a family told him no, so I'm good for now. We'll talk about that later now One of the other risks that you run Is alienating a fan base?  I mean you're gonna keep the majority of fan base But you are going to have a lot of upset people a whole lot of upset people And I know like a something I know it's gonna be somebody in conversation. Oh the fans don't matter the fans They don't make business decisions for the team. They don't impact the team. They don't they don't do anything for the personnel They don't sign anybody. They don't trade for anybody. They're not drafted The fans are just fans and fans should stay in their place. Well Let me tell you Fans, they're the one that buy tickets to the games Fans are the one that shows up in all kinds of weather to watch their favorite team and their favorite players play Fans are the ones who buy all these jerseys fans are the ones who buy all this memorabilia Fans are the one who got these hoodies they and they get on here and they talk fans they they have a lot of impact on Franchises so do not underestimate the power of a fan base because it is significant But most importantly You run the risk of that quarterback not working out You run the risk of alienating the fan base, but most importantly you run the risk of alienating Lamar Jackson if you draft the quarterback and That's even before You even decided to run with that quarterback This is before if you decided to trade Lamar let him go This is before as soon as you draft the quarterback especially in rounds one two or three If you draft the quarterback you run the risk of alienating the guy who apparently you want to get a contract done with What kind of message would that send to Lamar Jackson if the Ravens drafted a quarterback? That would be them letting him know. Okay. Hey, appreciate you, but it's probably gonna be a last ride though I mean, you don't remember Joe Flacco Joe Flacco. No, he knew what time it was Soon as they drafted Lamar Jackson. He already knew we already knew it was obvious that would be it and Lamar, he knows the game on the field, but obviously off the field as well So if contract negotiations weren't going good now and you draft the quarterback Yeah, they're gonna go south quick quick I Just and I know how some people some people view it like this some people like oh man Well, if the Ravens or draft the quarterback that could give Lamar Jackson extra motivation to go out there and do his thing this year I don't think he needs any extra motivation to go out there and do his thing I mean, he's always super motivated. That's not a question Lamar Jackson is as we have seen and heard plenty of times. He is his own biggest critic own biggest critic And a lot of times he lets outside critics get to him too. So he doesn't need any extra motivation But the Ravens would run that risk of alienating him and contract talks in just relationship with the team Because another reason because he doesn't have an agent and the reason that I bring that up is because Any dealings that the Ravens have with Lamar Jackson anything They're not talking to an agent and then and then that agent he relays the message to them up No, they have to talk to Lamar Jackson directly directly You have to look him in his eye not his agent in his eye You have to look him in his eye and try to justify the reason why you drafted a quarterback But you still want him to sign a deal really really It's it's risky business and I do not think if the Ravens went with that strategy I do not think you would end well I really don't not well. I don't think it will end well as far as Lamar Jackson and the Ravens coming to a contract agreement I don't think it would be like oh, man Ravens drafted a quarterback. All right. Let me go sign that deal now No, I mean it could but I Just wouldn't see it happen Because it would show that again, even if it's right in rounds two or three But it would show that the Ravens are willing to invest some capital into that next guy and Even though they have their guy right now So as far as a Randy Mola's playing I See what you're saying but No, I just think um, yeah, it would give the Ravens another option. It would But I Wouldn't do that. I Would not walk on that thin icy water I wouldn't do it because it just it wouldn't be worth it to me It wouldn't be worth it. And I just think that It's there's a lot more negative that could come from it than positive And the Ravens Ravens really have to figure out how to Handle this Lamar Jackson situation in my opinion and what I mean is I feel like they've done they've done an alright job with How they've built the team around Lamar, but they they also could have done a lot better a lot better and I really think that this year this offseason, which is still a young offseason. We will only We're not even a full month into the offseason. It started what officially on like March 14 something like that So we're not even a full month into the offseason But so Ravens could still make a lot of stuff happen. We'll see what goes down, but They really I mean they should have been on this a long time ago They they they should have been on this a while ago like the first year where I couldn't give them any excuse for not being on it was 2020 That was the first year where they had absolutely zero excuse for being on it for really going all in for that guy And I know you're lucky a lot of y'all tired of hear me say this, but I'm not tired of saying it because the Ravens haven't done it Because Yeah, the rookie year they obviously couldn't have gone all in on him because it was a lot of unknown and he was a rookie It was still Flacco's team. Then of course the transition from Flacco to Lamar. All right took over He ran them into the playoffs then they got ran out the play So then second year, it's like, okay, still a lot of unknowns We don't know how he is at the full-time quarterback is gonna be his first offseason as a starter Okay, cool, you ain't go all in then okay, cool, no problem Drafted Hollywood in the first round the Lamar's request Got his guy drafted Boykin in the third round. You added a Seth Roberts. You still had Willie Snead Mark Andrews was emerging. He was the top tight end. Okay. You are brought in Mark Ingram Earl Thomas again, they went 14 and two beautiful beautiful season It's like oh, he led the league and touchdown passes 36 to six interceptions One unanimous MVP Wow in his first full year starting He won the unanimous in unanimous MV unanimous MVP in his first full year starting. What? That's insane So all right, we got a unanimous MVP quarterback Wow, whoa, yeah, let's go all in on this guy for sure. Let's do it They didn't They didn't 2019 he wins unanimous MVP. He is Regarded as he was the best player in the NFL in 2019 was the best player in the league in 2019 How do they follow that up in 2020 with the construction of the roster? They didn't go all in That's perfect opportunity because he showed you what he can do and The thing that made it more frustrating for me, especially when we look back. It's like man He showed you what he could do with a Hollywood that was injured Miles Boykin Seth Roberts Willie Snead He showed you what he can do with those guys at wide receiver the offensive line They were better obviously Marshall yonder made such a big difference. They had Ronnie Stanley for the whole year Had Orlando Brown like he showed you what he can do with a quality offensive line and the wide receivers being So why not continue to give him a quality offensive line Yeah, Marshall yonder, he retired after that But why not give him a quality offensive line and then really upgrade those wide receivers that much more Why not do that? Why not? But the Ravens are like no, we're not We're not gonna do that So then in 2021 this last season They drafted Rashad Bateman. I like that.  We've got Hollywood. Okay. Got Devon Duvenay approach it from last year Okay, they drafted Rashad Bateman Tyler Wallace up But as far as bringing in a veteran wide receiver who's not washed up not old But they brought in one that's just really damaged goods and that was Sammy Watkins and I was just talking to my guy Josh about this the other day I remember when Raven signed Sammy Watkins I remember so many comments in the comment section and videos that we were doing Sammy Watkins a lot of cheese fans came Through all the six games Sammy that six games Sammy and I'd be like, ah, I can't argue with you But hopefully he'll be healthy for the Ravens. Maybe a reduced roll or something. We'll see We got like six games out of I like six games out of and That was it So the Ravens just really at the wide receiver position It's been quantity over quality At Titan they got Mark Andrews they they even gave him in his extension Great job there as far as their first Titan and the backup Titans has been a little rough. Nick Boyle, of course been hurting what not And they traded away Hayden Hurst never quite really replaced him They tried the Josh Oliver project a little bit, but he didn't really get much action in his way last year But um So they could still do some upgrading there at backup Titan, but at least the first string. So are you okay? But as far as wide receive wide receiver, um, you got a Hollywood, you got a Bateman nice one to punch But it's Ravens could really they could have done so much more so much more for their quarterback and There's literally no excuse as to why they haven't it should have started in 2020 after that MVPC Cuz he proved to you Exactly what he could do it should have started in 2020 It should have been in 2021 as well and it needs to be now in 2022 to I Keep hearing people when it whenever we talk about the contract. I keep hearing a lot of people say Lamar Jackson, he should sign his extension right now because it would give the Ravens Capra and That is true that it would give them Capra. It would alleviate a lot of cap space for these Ravens, but That's a big risk that I don't think he should take Because what have the Ravens done? When they've had all the cap room before his cap hit was 23 24 meal like it is this year What have they done for him when they've had the money sitting there? Why should he be like, alright, I'm a sign of deal. So I'll give y'all some more cap space What are they proving that they gonna do it? What are you gonna do with it? So this They got to step it up man They got to step it up. They got to step it up As far as building Building they got to step up the roster construction quality over quantity Not just bodies, but quality players game changers and I say all this to say Lamar is not innocent and all this as well Lamar got stuff that he got to step up on too for sure We talk about that all the time as well Lamar got stuff. He got to step on too in far as holding the ball the quick game And living to play another down throwing the ball away throwing receivers open Timing routes fade routes. They got a lot of stuff. They can implement and it's a mega and getting getting different guys involved more Building trust with other guys besides Hollywood and Mark Andrews And really just opening it up And that's that's a mix of Lamar. That's a mix of Greg Roman. But yes, that's on everybody But yeah Lamar certainly he got to step it up too But the Ravens again, they're roster construction This is like not that this is the last year that they can do it, but Yeah, this is this is the right now like obviously every year before now too, but right now This is the cheapest That Lamar is going to be the cheapest Because if it comes down to all this franchise tag stuff next year or next two years or next whatever That price tag goes up That cat pit goes up it goes way up and Shout out to big Sean, but the way that price tag is gonna go way up Lamar gonna feel blessed You're gonna feel blessed There you go But I just They got to step it up man The snow excuse no excuse and I also hear people say oh man the Ravens What is Lamar expecting to do? What are y'all expecting to do if Lamar won't sign a contract and he got a 23 male cap hit So what do y'all expect the Ravens to do if he got that and the cap hit that his cap It could go down if he signed a deal, but he not gonna sign a deal. Why that selfish man. No, that's not selfish man That ain't selfish The Ravens got approved that they are actually gonna do something. They have not proven that yet, man They ain't proven that yet When are they gonna prove that? Ain't no excuses this year, man And and that's the thing too the Ravens they know y'all y'all a lot of fans always talk about how the Ravens They always playing ahead They always playing ahead. They always planning for down the road That's how they do with their draft picks and stuff. They plan for down the road That's how they do with their that their cap their cap on Responsibility they plan for down the road.  They don't want to do it They want to do it their way but With them they always got a plan in place a plan for down the road and whatnot They even he was on a five-year plan a while back back in what 2014 they had him on a five-year plan Are you gonna take over then? So what I'm saying is that the Ravens they should have been planning for this They should have been planning for his cap hit to be Significantly more than it what it had been So they should have a plan in place But as far as drafting another quarterback That ain't the one


My name is Beth Rudy. You have seen me once a day the entirety of this I annotate conference But I will introduce myself again for all of the new faces in the crowd I run something called science in the classroom at AAAS. This as a caveat is not science magazine I'm not involved in the science family of journals what we do is Annotate papers from the science family of journals and soon papers from outside the science family of journals for educational purposes So that non-experts or amateurs if you if you would like to call them amateurs can access this material a little bit more easily I Was thinking about this sitting listening to our first panel Which was an amazing kind of broad strokes blue sky discussion and Realized that my discussion and I don't know about the rest of my esteemed panelists is very much looking at the forest And the trees and in fact may be focusing on the trees I don't know if that's really what Heather had in mind for us, but that's what I'm talking about now is our workflow And how annotation Through an actual annotation software has helped us So the vision for science in the classroom is relatively simple We want to make real research accessible to non-experts slash amateurs And thereby enhance scientific literacy hopefully We use annotation as a tool to highlight the collaborative nature of research So a lot of people think that the scientific method is a thing that actually happens in a linear fashion anybody who has done science knows that that is not in fact the case and what it is is just kind of a collaborative effort across many years and many subjects revising and iterating our knowledge and Finally, we want to empower educators. So there are a lot of educators out there that would like to speak about science They'd like to speak about real research, but they also feel incredibly intimidated because as was mentioned in the first panel Scientific papers are really difficult to consume and it's kind of a barrier for the rest of the world As an overview of what science in the classroom has to offer We currently have 84 published papers. We have 14 in our queue. We have 90 and counting contributors Those are ranging from actual high school students to grad students to postdocs to educators and research Research people who actually aren't very skilled necessarily when they start the process of Communicating their science to an undergraduate level by the time that we're done. We're hoping that they feel a lot more comfortable with it Each article comes with the unaltered article We think it's really important to present the information as it was originally presented But it has an interactive annotation fabric That is woven over the top of it We also have tabs for all of the figures in the paper and those tabs are used to kind of describe the methodology visualization etc That the authors decided to use in order to convey their information We supply educators with educator guides A lot of our resources have data activities that allow students to actually get their hands quote-unquote dirty And and play with the data a little bit News and policy and external resources and finally in our new website We also have the ability to create collections So that's external resources news and policy and multiple annotated papers in one subject Here's what our past process of our workflow look like We would ask an annotator to take an article This is a PDF version of the article and we would ask them to use the adobe commenting tools in order to annotate it for us so as You can see that the highlights have different colors We asked them to use those different colors to indicate which learning lens They wanted to categorize those annotations in And then you can see kind of from all of the little Bubbles up there each one of those has a comment on it and those comments are the annotations that they wanted to put on the paper and then we used a lot of Copy-paste was really fun to put each one of the individual annotations Directly on to the text using a Drupal 7 widget So we had to highlight the text that we wanted to annotate copy paste from the adobe file over into the Drupal widget and then that would put an HTML layer on top of it And then this is our old website, which we never told anybody to go to after Starting about a year ago because it was kind of embarrassing. It looked like we'd made it in 1995 Looks a little better now Once we started partnering with hypothesis We were still in like kind of the learning process. We're still in the learning process now We either gave annotators the login for the actual administrator account so that they could go in and Write the annotations within that account or they developed their own hypothesis login And then we had to go in and copy and paste all of the different annotations and put them back in under the Sitsi administrator account in order to get the learning lens, which is how we How we provide our annotations to the users to import them And then now thankfully working very closely with John John, where are you John? John you tell are you there? That's so sad. He is our savior and now we have a Situation where as you can see the annotator in this experience. They Their their title is beyond roots. It's not the administrator account. It's their own annotation account We have it set up so that now all we have to do is Kind of deploy push a deploy on our our end on the Drupal 8 and and it will start bringing the annotations in through our learning lens So our overall needs as a product I hate referring to something that has educational value as a product But it's the easiest way to refer to it. We need editorial control over our annotations So a lot of times it's a good idea to let people annotate As freely as they possibly would like because we're actually providing educational content that is a And a layer of expertise put on top of our papers We need to have that editorial control. So if somebody says hey, that's not correct or This annotation is written for like somebody who's a tenured professor instead of an undergraduate We need to be able to go in and change it We need a streamlined annotation process. So as you can see there's been a whole lot of Copy-paste going on in our lives And I would ideally like there to be no more copy-paste ever In fact, I'd like to light fire to copying pasting and never do it again Another problem that we have with our annotation process is that there are frequent breaks And so anytime that there is an annotation Flub going on where we can't get our information provided to the people who are using it This is a problem. We end up having an email chain of like 500 to 600 emails It seems sometimes to to troubleshoot Eventually, and I know we're not there yet, but eventually I'd also like to set fire to those email chains We also need something that's hardy meaning it's really difficult to break it And we need something that's flexible. So ideally at some point we would like to be able to let Let there be a learning lens that's just user-generated content So that's more students coming on reading asking questions interacting with the authors Annotators interacting with other annotators that type of thing And then being able to turn on different learning lenses based on what paper the person's looking at or what's relevant for that particular content Issues that we've had so far. We have a lot of learning lens breakage with the hypothesis integration We found all sorts of really cool ways to break it. I'm sure we'll find more ways as we go so if there's a reply on any of the Annotations it breaks the whole thing if there's an orphan annotation it breaks the whole thing if there's a page note It breaks the whole thing. So we're working on that the learning lens presentation Because we have this proprietary software that delivers content in a very beautiful and accessible way To our users It also is stuck with a specific sized block that pops up when you're when you're clicking on the annotations And what that means is that the lovely hypothesis automated integration of images and videos Doesn't convey nearly as well with our own learning lens So that's something that we need to work with our developers to get that looking a little bit better And then one of the things that shall be lake is the program associate For science in the classroom and he and I are always sad at how much we totally rely on others to be able to do our job I feel terrible every single time I bug John And I feel terrible every single time that I bug our Drupal developers And I realized that working with them is in fact part of our job But eventually it's at some point we would really like to have that control so that we don't have to Rely on the developers to deploy a change to the website in order to get the annotations to be pulled in automatically Poor John has been awesome and has made us a custom Hypothesis Chrome extension just for us So that we can do kind of a few things to make our workflow better But that's really not sustainable for him or for us in the long run And so at some point we'd really like to be able to to walk around on our our own two feet And it sounds kind of like Where hypothesis is going where other annotation clients are going is very much in that way I will leave it at that and Next up we have Sebastian Kircher And you are the associate director correct of qualitative data Repository Let me see if I can pull up your paper there Good morning, and thank you. Yeah continuing on the Tree-themed topic. This is again very hands-on and I don't know hopefully a little vision but low on the vision probably So qualitative data repository. We are a small social science data repository we archive qualitative social science data and Anyone who is in the sciences more broadly or reads about the sciences has probably followed along with what many people call the transparency revolution in the sciences the expectation today is that if you Publish empirical science you are transparent about the what's behind the science that you publish and that includes publishing your data and how you analyze your data and Broadly speaking with some caveats We know how to do this with quantitative data Not everyone does it by all means, but we know how it should be done, right? So you have some type of Matrix form data of spreadsheet columns rows then you have Some code in language that analyzes that data it could be our it could be python it could be state I could be something more fancy And that code produces a table or if you're cool it produces a figure And then you put the code and the spreadsheet the matrix and the data repository and boom You have transparency and it's great That's not how Qualitative research usually works when you do qualitative research in the social sciences Oftentimes you have you know You write a sentence and then that you point to maybe one or two documents that might be an interview that might be a Archival source and then you discuss how you analyze that and then you move on in your story And you point to the next document you go to the process again Then you do that again and again and again and you do that and like I don't know 50 60 70 different passages in your text So your nice kind of data set script put it in a repository Doesn't really work that neatly There is a traditional way scholars have dealt with that for There's some debate about this but roughly the essence the end of the 16th century And that's the beloved footnote or in this more horrifying example an end note. No one likes end nodes and So the idea is pretty similar right so you write something and then you put a footnote in there and then you Write a little bit about what that footnote does and you point to the sources that you use and if you look at that Footnote to a problems or end node in this case two problems come immediately to mind the first problem is The two sources if you can see them, I don't know how large does this yeah, they're kind of viewable there are books published in Russia and or the Soviet Union in the 1920s there I don't think in any US library So kind of hard for you to find those and you're also Given that it's printed your editor will not be very happy if you go into great length in your end nodes There was this time when people published, you know three quarters of their pages as Footnotes in history at least in the social sciences. No journal editor will let you get through with that So both not good for transparency You can actually go to the underlying data unless you travel to all the places the researcher travel to I'm a comparative politist takes scholar. I travel a lot. So that's usually not feasible and you have space constraints Not good With annotations we think we can get around a lot of this So instead of having a footnote we just put an annotation Over the relevant passage in the article and then the author has as much space as they want to Talk about, you know, why did I use this source? What is this source doing? What's the level of credibility of this source? Etc. Etc. It's all digital. So space constraints not really an issue and I can then link to a primary source that I've digitized and put into our data repository and a reader instead of traveling to a Moscow can just click through and Look at the link the cool thing is this is not a vision. This is very much a practice. So qr code url if you want to try this out and Yeah, I'm gonna let you play with this a little bit I should warn you you will need to register for the repository to actually click through the source. There are a couple of sociological Not technical actually Reasons for that, but otherwise I think it looks really fun and It adds a lot of depth to the article Vision we were supposed to talk about vision so so this is some shorter term vision But some of the things we started working on this about a year ago And we're very proud that we actually have something tangible up and such a short amount of time and a lot of credit for that goes to Hypothesis for providing the annotation infrastructure that works nicely with that The biggest kind of issue for us is that this is still very tedious for the scholars To actually do so a lot of what we're thinking about is how can we integrate? Writing these annotations into the process in which the scholars create their work rather than having them do this at the end When they may have forgotten all about The research they've done and one of the principal ways that we're thinking about this is integrating this with the tools that the scholars use to Store and annotate their research be it reference managers be it Qualitative analysis tools that's in vivo there or be it for the more adventurous qualitative scholars tools Like github or the open science framework or both of them the second one and that's Obvious for who we are is Preserve and protect those annotations. We are a data repository That's kind of the core of our mission is that the stuff is going to be there and accessible not in five years but in 50 years and That has a lot of challenges Especially when you think about these kind of two moving targets that we have to deal with with annotations Which is a the annotation and be the underlying publication Where especially what we work with high processes and with a publisher. We don't really have control about of over either of them, so that's a bit tricky for us and then at least as As as an idea that we want to explore Socialists may be a little strong, but obviously this is a very interesting way to do interactive source criticism, right? So your researcher makes a point about you know I've consulted this source in this sx and then this is a great place to reply. Well, no, I've I've seen this source I've looked it up and and no it doesn't and this debate is taking place in social science currently, but it's very isolated because The only people who can engage in the debate have other people who went to the same archive So so it's very narrow and we think that this can expand this obviously there is all of the kind of considerations that we talked about yesterday with you know common systems are very risky places and academics in spite of what those of you who aren't in academia might think are not actually very nice people all the time so There needs to be a lot of kind of safeguards in place to make sure this happens in a constructive way Okay, we were also supposed to talk about creating a better ecosystem And that's where I get to scold people and to compensate for that. They're gonna be cute animal pictures Creating a better ecosystem So we accounted a bunch of problems with this that we didn't really expect and I just figured I would showcase some of these One of the bigger ones is if you embed a PDF in an HTML frame, I cannot annotate it Please don't do it and this is kind of the old Wiley layout and But a lot of the kind of cool new kids on the pre-print front There's a no-dose and the OSF framework do this too, and it's not nice. Please don't do it cone of shame Even worse is Reapcube I Just gonna leave it at that because you know lock it up in a proprietary system Make it impossible to annotate with anything except the Reapcube annotation tool and look how angry that guy is This is actually not Elsevier's fault Although I put up the Elsevier example, but it's an obstacle that I wanted to raise If we want to link to an article a lot of the time that goes of course through the hypothesis proxy which breaks the authentication to Pay walled articles which is really unfortunate because a lot of the people we want to read this may not have the Hypothesis Chrome extension installed So this is in this case not a blaming the publisher necessarily except for you not not being open access But a problem that we need to solve Or look very sad The last thing is Two things that actually and these are begging for better metadata one thing is that Good metadata on article pages helps us solve Tying the annotations to the right page and so these three meta tags are the entirety of the meta tags on One article page and that's not terribly helpful The other thing is that session specific cryptic PDF URL So horrible if I want to point in a reader to a PDF and say look at that annotated version of the PDF And I can't do it because the PDF is session has a session specific URL That's sad, so please don't do it and this is how I'm looking at you I think sad and happy dogs make everything better. So that was a good call Next we have somebody that you have already met, but I will reintroduce her Jennifer Lynn She is the director of product management across rough something that I love very much cool, I Don't use max anymore on purpose All right as Beth mentioned I'm Jennifer Lynn and I'm speaking here about cross rough and Though for those of you who aren't familiar with the organization we provide scholarly infrastructure There are digital object identifiers that are a big part of what we do Which prevents link rot essentially from happening with scholarly? Research that are that have been published we do a lot of other things and Some of which I'll cover over the course of talking about actual annotations and why all of this matters so a big part of what we do is the connecting up the linking up of of many things through metadata and This is not only research articles to research articles through say references, but Even with metadata within a specific research work such as the contributor through an orchid Thank You Rob to the funder with a unique funder ID through a funder registry to the research article to the data set through the software etc But all of that linking up is enabled through metadata We're here because of annotations and you know annotations are I think we can all agree a Very valuable asset that can enrich the research findings that are shared whether or not that Finding is represented in the form of a research paper or a preprint or a data set or even software annotations are a scholarly resource and We need to figure out together as a community how we properly treat it as such and So part of that is getting it into the scholarly record for what reasons so that people can find it So that the researchers can cite it and that the annotators who are contributing who are knowledge producers can get credit for it so that it can get linked up into the larger map of research Research production and so that it can be discovered whether it's because it can be text and data mined or And then linked up to the article which is which then is also text and data mined all those things That are associated with the annotation are ways and inlets to finding The research answering the research questions that that that we have So I think the the point is that we need to be that researchers Have the potential to be annotating along the way and then it's not just the publication workflow Right, but the entire workflow of the researcher conducting his or her work It that might start off at the level of the grant, right? If the grant is published it can then be annotated, right? And I know that many funders by law perhaps are Required to publish the grants private philanthropies are also beginning to move in this direction I think this these these initial Proposals can be very very useful not only to the funder as well as the research group involved But the larger community annotations then would enrich that the soft the software in the data sets that go into That our output of the research itself, you know, these are Obvious to us all but all the way down from the early outputs that are shared or perhaps shared within a small circle and kept private All the way down to the final publication as well as all of the different reuse objects that come out of the these Publications all of them can be annotated and all of these can are are then you know important Enrichments which we all need to know about So getting this into the scholarly record by way of the metadata is the way is the mechanism by which Crossref we understand we can help out This diagram is very very unuseful in the sense that it It's article-centric and that's not At all what we mean to say so much as to illustrate that there are things that link up and Things these things that count traditionally Are only a subset of the thing other things that could count and may count if we Properly support it as part of the formal scholarly record So you have the article that's connected to other articles We have the data and software that underlie the research findings in that article the preprint the videos the protocols the published peer reviews We also have of course the annotations here and by linking all of this up We can create what is essentially a massive graph or a map of Research in itself and at crossref, you know because we're open scholarly infrastructure We make all of this free lay available through our apis to the entire community This map then is able to link up the research works to the contributors whether your contributor of As a research paper the authors or the editor the reviewer or say the author of the annotation Or the curator of the data set Etc to then also the activity surrounding it and this is one of the things that we have been working on for two years to build and Beta is actually going to start in a couple weeks. It's called crossref event data where we're going to be Collecting activity events what we call events surrounding these research Publications and then knitting it up into this open scholarly map so that any Of the links between social media and say a book or a data set That's been registered with data site or a research article, etc Can then be linked up to all the other things that say the research articles also linked up to References and mentions in Wikipedia, you know mentions and blog posts What this will include when we release the beta is also hypothesis annotations that occur on any Any publications that have been registered with crossref and data site so anything that has a DOI With a hypothesis and an annotation we are going to be making available through our API So we hope that this will be a useful thing For everyone as we begin to figure out, you know, what can we do with all of these links? What can we do with this open scholarly map? So again, it's not just the publication workflow itself That's important is the entire research workflow all the way down and with this open data as I mentioned, you know The the the use cases of it are unlimited How people interpret it is wide open what we do is just make the data openly available to everyone So I think I'll echo a point that Sebastian made earlier in terms of what we need is We need all players online to play well and make the content Available in a way where systems robots APIs etc can find it how you set it up There are very many ways and some publishers or some platforms have set it up. So there's lots of cookies which block you There are ways in which you can have so many URL redirects that that also becomes a challenge I won't go too much into it But please don't do any of those things and make it easier for all of the systems who are trying to knit everything together and Propagate this to everyone make please make it easy for hypothesis to know about The annotations that may they may happen surrounding your your platforms on your platforms and also one last thing is that to the extent that Yes, absolutely one last thing is that you know as Infrastructure provider we want to make sure that we are supporting everyone So in the event that you have a platform that you would also like to be included in event data There are links. There are events. There's activities surrounding research publications that are happening on your platform Please do talk to me. We would like to include you in the cross-off event data tracker. Thank you While we're trying to get Joel on the screen for all of us You may have already actually figured this out Jennifer sound check 1 2 3 1 2 3 How are you going to assign dois to the annotations or are you going to assign actual dois to the annotations themselves sound check 1 2 3 Sound check 1 2 3 sound check 1 2 3 Is it no it's on yeah, please go okay I'll answer the question really quickly the Cross-off event data actually tracks activity surrounding Research publications with a DOI it itself does not need a DOI right so a tweet About a research article will be part will be an event that we share a tweet does not need a DOI. We're capturing it That makes things easier. Well, I would like to introduce Joel Plotkin. He is the CEO of e-journals press He is joining us remotely Yep, yep Hello everybody good morning Thank you for taking a few minutes to listen more presentations What I'm going to talk about today is how we use the hypothesis annotation tool in the classical purity process and slide presentation all five minutes and Basically so the use case that we're trying to adjust is that journals around the world use a basic online web-based peer-review software and Traditionally editors invite reviewers to review the main scripts and reviewers provide reviews or feedback You know web forms and their web forms are based on a series of questions Ask about the scientific merit is a science novel. Yes. No type questions And so the question that we were working with hypothesis e-life and American Geophysical Union was is how can we use? annotation tools to help authors and reviewers and editors Redline the documents and collaborate a little better Here's a sample of the way that we're based full forms that asking the questions and comments to author comments to add or and If if the audience has been a part of the peer-review process they're very probably familiar with this So what we did is we started looking at the hypothesis tool and Wanted to make it so that that reviewers and editors couldn't mark up the PDF article file We also realize that we wanted to share this marked-up main script with the authors But we didn't we need to still be all the blind to the reviewers are so the authors could see oh It's reviewer number one reviewer number two's comments or annotations But the editors should see that we're number one at that that person is John Smith or salary waters So there's different security models that will show you today and then also as you start making annotations We've got feedback from American Geophysical Union. It'd be nice to Tag these annotations whether they're major or minor concerns They're just small edits whether they're made to figures etc And then as you go through and start using the annotation or hypothesis tool There's supposed to be a lot of comments or annotations So be nice to have a filtering system. We say show me only the major concerns or show me only the concerns regarding figures Or show me only the concerns regarding this reviewers of your number one's comments And I'm going to show you some what we ended up coming up with on the next set of screens So within our peer review system You'll see that the real link to annotate the merge PDF and also show a summary table We'll come back to that in a second But when you click on the annotate link will actually display the hypothesis annotation tool and You'll be able to highlight a specific set of text in the tool This is as if you were reviewer and you wanted to mark up this manuscript You can click on this annotate button after you highlight it And then a comments area will the classical hypothesis comments area will be displayed and you can type in your comment and On the F underneath the comment you can tag it whether it's just a summary major minor edit and all that's configurable And you can also specify whether this is a confidential comment just these plates the editors or whether these annotations should display to the author's also and then in The hypothesis tool we've configured it to the deal to display the annotations on the side panel And as you can see we'll show you the role of each person reviewer number one number two and this is in the interim Security model so you actually see the full full name of who's commenting But if it was this is being used by the author just see the tag reviewer number one, but not their full name Here you can see that there's a whole list of annotations are going on with the different tags and so forth And as I was saying earlier sometimes that this become very long So you want to wear a filter and you can click on that and all annotations link at the top and select a various filter Just show me your number one's comments show me the major comments show me the edits and so forth The next thing is we had to work on the user interface because even though we're gathering all this data We sort of had to meld it back to the classical peer review form I showed you traditionally with all the questions and comments And so what we did is we decoupled the hypothesis user interface from our from their Classical back-end database and all those annotations that that the reviewers are putting into the hypothesis toolkit They're actually going back to each of our class database For this one manuscript and then we can repurpose the annotation and how we want it so we go back We store the database then later on we actually Queer our database and we can build a nice web-based form that will summarize the annotations It will give them the context of where the annotation highlighted what the reviewers comments were with the categories were whether there was a confidential comment or not and This is very important because we need to find it a clean way to say well If the person doesn't want to click on that annotations link How can we still show the author a summary of this feedback in the decision letter? And so we build this web form and then we actually can convert it on the fly to a PDF file and attach this PDF file This summary to the author decision letter so the author can quickly see what the comments were and try to revise their manuscript They'll also have the option to go back and actually interact with the tool if they want but we wanted to give authors both ways of interacting with the system and That's the presentation for today questions Great questions. Can anybody hear me through this? And if you do come over here, I have a question And this is in regarding to I'm sorry. I can't hear if there are any questions Okay, I'm sorry, I'm Gail Clement. I'm a library administrator at Caltech So we have a lot of AGU authors editors and I myself was on the AGU pubs committee for a couple years I am really Wondering what your expectation or your hopes are for who's now training researchers For these additional tools and practices around annotation That's part a and then the loaded part of this is part B would be and is there a role for Libraries in particular who are training authors on a whole bunch of other stuff around opens garly Stuff That our training could be Supported that what we're doing To train researchers on our campuses could be integrated into the way that you're Pushing out these tools as part of the research lifecycle as part of the researcher workflow Okay, I'll try to answer the three topics so Right now we're doing a pilot with American Geophysical Union because it's not just for new authors or new reviewers and authors But it's it's even people who've been publishing 20 or 30 years were working You know helping journals peer reviewed for many a long time this whole annotation process need very new to them So what we figure is to do this pilot gain the feedback and then we'll probably set up some web videos to show them How to use the tools best practices? You know also at scholarly, you know conferences like Society of scholarly publishing or council science centers We'll also be able to do presentations and educate people how to use the tools Yeah, so my view on this is that I like technologies to require as little training as possible Researchers are very busy. They don't like to spend time on being trained and So my first step is always try to do this with steps or in ways that they already know Rather than require training to the extent that training is required or at least helpful. I think libraries are a great place It's often the place where kind of new scholarly technologies are getting introduced to researchers because the other place are the senior faculty and they usually use the Tools that are 20 years old. So so in that sense if To the extent that training is neat as I think libraries have a key role to play I Think it is a very interesting question, you know from a I build products product director From that standpoint, obviously you want to design the system and so much as it can as easily be integrated into work flows As possible user experience is a big thing user design is another big thing But we also know the same problem exists on the other side, which is There isn't any such thing as the build it and they will come bit, right? So to the extent that there are new social ways of sharing and communicating that need to be then Built into the system at that may go above and beyond then merely just delivering a product that can easily be used I Think that's a really good point in that We've got all of these great tools out there and people don't necessarily know that they exist So it's not just training people how to use it. It's how do you even make it known that it's available? And that's an interesting question Heather I just wanted to add on that that we're gonna have Unconferencing sessions this afternoon and one that we hope you'll be interested in joining is Adoption strategies So if you are interested in this topic and I think every use case we've heard and we'll hear later today Has the adoption strategy aspect to it. Mm-hmm, so I'm Putting out a plug for that. It's not on the wall yet, but it will be cool Hi, so the SACI conference already has been having For its proceedings has been having annotations via github tags and markup in that way As it was mentioned yesterday being able to go to a specific line is extremely helpful I've been I'm somewhat in charge of making hypothesis a thing as part of that process But I'm somewhat afraid of the difficulty of integrating with the existing github annotation services Particularly this is super useful for reviews Because it's specifically about papers. Are there any efforts right now to integrate across these? different platforms for annotating including things that are say internal or proprietary That may be one of those questions is actually better for the hypothesis team than for us But I could be completely wrong about that What did you see other services would be fine, too? Yeah, sure. What what did you say the conference was? Sorry? I didn't hear the scientific scientific scientific computing in Python conference Ah scientific computing and Python conference. So Joel, can you hear me talking right now? Joel can you hear me did we mute him? Oh Okay, well, that's okay. We can't hear him, but he can hear us to sort of sum up There we go the question was How are we approaching integration of multiple different platforms that are kind of trying to do the same thing? Because I hadn't realized until yesterday that github already had like an annotation process and was way ahead of the curve when it came to that and so Joel you may not be able to answer that question that may be a question for the hypothesis team and the people who are working on the annotating software. I certainly don't have a good answer to that I Think in general, this is sort of like a new field and you know people are looking at different ways to use hypothesis and I think it will continue to evolve but Dan hypothesis are reaching out to different vendors and sharing their ideas even as far as standard Annotation formats and tools and so forth and I think over the course next couple years There'll be a convergence on the ways and the techniques of using annotations But there's gonna be a little bit of learning curve and time to get there Both the tool set and as a previous question answered, how do we train then users and so forth? As a follow-up or somewhat related in terms of Code and software as actually part of the research process There's that donho quote that the real work of science is not what is in the paper It's just the advertisement for the real work of the science and recording all of that and so What efforts are being done right now to really get that? Connection between having not just papers being annotated, but the entire research process, right? Okay, so to sum up that Joel. Did you hear that at all? Can you repeat one more time? Absolutely and I think this is a really good and interesting question and something that my my Science in the classroom is really interested in not just annotating the paper that comes out of the research But how are we going to be helping use annotation to talk about the research process itself? and so You've got this paper. You've got these great things. They're publishing their results But how can we use annotation to kind of weave into that? How were those results acquired in the first place and what's the actual practice and nature of science or any research? Okay, that's actually pretty neat because there's some journals are very classical They have these reviews and I think of annotations It's another way of getting feedback from their viewers and editors to the author so they can improve their communications and so forth whether it's about the piece of But sometimes who's a little more innovative if you look at what be life is doing they're actually publishing the reviews so They'll you know, they're they'll work with the author They'll be comments or annotations going back and forth and when the main should probably gets published They'll actually publish the reviews with the annotations downstream So readers can understand what type of dialogue existed between the author the viewers and the editors to understand What their concerns might have been how the main script was refined so classically we've used and More specifically more annotations were kept very private And I think in the future some journals would share their share more than information and by sharing the views and the annotations It will help scientific conversation about the topic So I would I Don't know if this is sacred ledgers I don't think the answer to every problem in science needs to be annotation I think the problem of better annotating data and code into papers is your t-shirt Right, so Jupiter notebooks and our markdown and related tools are much better suited for that purpose than trying to cram that into annotations and to the extent you want to you know, you can Annotate your our markdown or your Jupiter file But but I think for linking linking the software to the paper Use the tools that are designed for that and they're really kind of terrific in that No, I think that's a good That's a good way of looking at that the actual summing up of the software element of the research That went into producing the results use maybe something else for science in the classroom We definitely use annotation in order to kind of help guide the readers through How the whole research project was done not just the software but but kind of all of it And then how it relates back to The full body of work that was used to inform that question in the first place And then finally how the information in that particular paper is then used to inform the community going forward I guess one clarifying point here the term annotations is a little bit vague So I think maybe using the loosest form of annotations That I can see to be very valuable across the board whether or not it needs to take a specific format and use the specific Technology is another question, but you know gene annotations that's been around since you know We had the genetic code so that those annotations obviously look very different than say I have a hypothesis one Does it need to is a good question? But yes annotate, please All right, we've got time for one more question. You are the lucky questioner. All right Nick I want to speak now as a researcher who has reviewed many articles and had many of my articles reviewed I Just wanted to caution against getting stuck on the problem of having to train people to do annotation and instead maybe focus the emphasis on How can all of you are building amazing tools and I applaud you? How can you work together to make sure that you're not creating 17 different rather identical processes? So as no one trains anyone to do reviews You learn how to do a review because someone asked you to do one and you start doing them So I wouldn't worry so much about training people to do reviews. Your process is far more you know intuitive then Something where you're you're reading a whole paper and you're taking out sentences and Pacing them into a word document and then commenting about those and then trying to create a synthetic review from everything Annotations are far easier Also, there's a huge thirst in the community for more of these annotations and something that's more like public Review where we actually get credit for making a paper better by giving constructive comments and annotations onto the paper So I would just I would caution you to like look to all the upside and focus on the upside because they're in the research Community we want the tools that you're building right now. Our process is kind of optimized for the Pony Express It's like oh well You're gonna send a paper to an editor and they're gonna send it out to some other people and then they're gonna send it back And it's gonna take a year and for science for a science to iterate quickly We need something like the tools you're developing So please know that we love it and focus on making the tools as similar as possible so that when we do use them Across different platforms. It's it's easy for us to do the second third and fourth time So Joel just to sum up that embrace the positive try to Make platforms kind of similar across the board don't reinvent the wheel And keep going and basically from the research community standpoint the product that the e-journals press and the rest of us are kind of Hap-hazardly cobbling together is much easier than trying to copy-paste into a word document and creating that kind of a review document Did anybody have any closing questions? I thought that was a really great point to close on so I Will officially call an end to this and I believe we now have a break


The study found that N-2 hydroxy, propyl-3, trimethylammonium chytosan chloride, HTCC, a cationically modified chytosan, enhances the immune response to hepatitis E virus, HEV, recombinant polypeptid vaccine when coadministered intramuscularly. HTCC was shown to increase serum HEV specific IgG antibodies, splenocytes proliferation, and the growths of CD for plus CD8 T lymphocytes and IFN secreting T lymphocytes in peripheral blood, indicating a strong immunoenhancing effect. The study also demonstrated that HTCC is safe and effective in inducing a good antibody response and stimulating TH1, biased immune responses for HEV recombinant polypeptid vaccine. This article was authored by Wei Dao, Hai Kunjing, Ting Fu, and others.


Good morning, good morning. I live for the day when I am introduced as the financier of Tesla, but maybe one day that'll happen. Thank you, thank you John, appreciate it. I want to say actually just a quick word about John before I begin. Years and years ago, a friend of mine here in DC, an elected official who's now long since retired, said to me, you know, you can get an enormous amount of things done in Washington if you don't need to have your name attached to them. John is a hero of the clean energy movement. I mean, he is the, he directs the Energy Future Coalition, I see Boyd and Gray somewhere in the audience who's a founding member of that, which I'm privileged to attend and enjoy. Senior counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, his bio is in your briefing materials, but John has as much as anybody been responsible over the last couple of decades for the progress that we've made in clean energy. And in fact, the theme of my conversation this morning is that we've actually made a fair amount of progress, much of it due to people like John and the incredible work they've done. So join me in giving John a round of applause if you would. I also want to thank CSIS for hosting this event and it's a fabulous new facility. CSIS has been in the business of providing insight and intelligence into complicated and disruptive in the Washington sense of the word, disruptive issues for over 50 years. I decided to look up what was happening in 1962 when CSIS was founded. So here's what was going on in 1962. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan released their debut albums. Johnny Carson began hosting The Tonight Show, the first Walmart and the first Kmart opened. John Glenn became the first astronaut to orbit the earth. It was the first time that the term the personal computer was ever used and of course we were entering into the Cuban Missile Crisis. So CSIS has had a long, long run. Let me tell you what else was happening in 1962 and in the early years of the 60s. There were flash floods in Barcelona and parts of Germany that killed hundreds of people. There was heavy smog over London for weeks that summer. Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which really launched the environmental movement in this country. And Congress funded the first study to examine the effects of automotive exhaust on human health. Which leads to my sort of fundamental theme and that is we've come a long way. But in some ways, we haven't made much progress at all and in some ways there's an enormously long road ahead. Disruptive technologies not only require breakthroughs, they require the right conditions of time and place and desire. Natural gas is not new. The Chinese were using natural gas in 200 BC to separate salt from brine. The Dutch were actively obviously using windmills for commercial purposes in the 1500s. And even in this country, ethanol blends replaced whale oil in fuel lamps in the 1830s. So my first point today, because I'm not gonna talk about specific technologies, I'm gonna leave that to the incredible experts that you all have lined up for the rest of the day and look forward to hearing about their insights. But the first point I wanna make as we think about a framework for thinking about this is that as we talk about innovation, let's make sure we focus on what will work in our time and our place. Because breakthrough technologies that have no markets in a timeframe that matters for business will eventually largely remain breakthrough technologies. Today also marks the 42nd Earth Day, pretty auspicious day to hold this conference. Earth Day is now celebrated in 192 countries. And over a billion people around the world today will do something that in some way encourages them to participate in an Earth Day activity. In this country, Gaylord Nelson, Senator, former Senator from Wisconsin, is largely credited for establishing Earth Day in 1970. But people forget actually why that happened. Because in 1969, there was a massive oil spill off the coast of California near Santa Barbara. It is actually to this day, the third largest oil spill in the history of the country after the Deepwater Horizon spill and the Exxon Valdez. 100,000 barrels of oil spilled into the channel and millions of marine creatures and birds and the like died. So once again, this served notion that we've come an unbelievably long way, 42 Earth Days years later, but still struggling with and battling the same issues. Which leads then forward to my second point. It's not only that there's much left to do and not an enormous amount of time to do it in. It means that the decisions that we make, the quality of the decisions that we make are critical. Sea Rise of some level, and I don't wanna debate it, and I'm probably speaking to a comrade in arms group, but Sea Rise is inevitable. And it's going to show, I think, I say this a little euphemistically, that Atlantis was not a myth. Because in some period of time, we're gonna lose some of the Florida Keys. Now you may not care about the Marshall Islands or the Seychelles or Tuvalu or something, but one third of all Americans live within 10 miles of a coastline. So these are huge issues with enormous ramifications and the quality of the decisions we make now will have dramatic impacts. But I'm actually not a gloom and doomer. I'm actually an eternal optimist on this because I think not only have we come a long way, I think we've already won. I actually think that the argument in Washington today is not about whether or not clean and renewable energy but simply about the speed of implementation. And the question is, is it gonna take five years or 50 years? And truthfully, if the outcomes weren't so important, wouldn't matter much. Because even 50 years in an energy cycle and even in a political cycle, not that long. The challenges, the problem is, the outcomes are so binary that whether it's five years or 50 years matters an enormous amount. Why do I say we've already won? You all know as well as I do about the economics and the costs of the price of solar modules. Wind turbines in the last, how dramatically they've fallen over the last five to 10 years.  And I'm gonna talk about how much more the solar can drop because we haven't really started balance of systems costing yet. And one thing this country is incredibly good at is taking costs out of production. By the way, it's interesting as a sidebar, just as a brain, as a thought exercise. It must be true that these lines cross at some point because if the cost of inputs is free and the cost of extractive technologies is not free, then at some point those lines cross. And that gets back to the question, is that five years or 50 years to which the answer isn't relevant except that it's deeply relevant? Here's another by the way, unrelated to where I just was, but what is the resale value of a car with an internal combustion engine if the initial purchase price of a zero emissions vehicle and an EV and a car with an IC engine are essentially the same? Zero. I mean, yes, there'll be people who always want vintage cars and muscle cars and collector's items and the thing. But if the total cost of ownership is here, right, repair, gas, et cetera, et cetera, then at some point the inflection, the purchase inflection of the EV market has to dramatically ramp up. And this problem is a function of the fact that we tend to look at the world as a snapshot rather than as a movie. You gotta look at the movie here, the introduction of EVs as an example is on a long, steady ramp. So I started by saying, I think we've already won. Here's an example. Businesses everywhere now focus on energy as a business cost and a marketing tool. And these practices are embedded. McDonald's packaging is completely biodegradable. In fact, 40% of all McDonald's total waste is now recycled. Google has taken their carbon footprint down to almost zero. Unilever, which is Ben and Jerry's dove soap, Hellman's mayonnaise and the like, has completely altered its business model and has lined up its brand against a focus on sustainability. Sprint, and by the way, Apple yesterday, Sprint and Apple now have huge electronics recycling program, buyback programs. Walmart announced a plan this year to produce or procure 600% more renewable energy than it used in 2010 and to reduce energy efficiency of its buildings by 20%. These businesses don't do this only because it seems like a good cause. They do it because it has an economic rationale to it. And in that vein, I would say to you that that's how you'll know we've really won. When we get to what I call sort of phase three. Phase one of the clean energy movement in a sense was to be a little glib. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Crunchy Granola, Birkenstock, save the world and appropriate to its time and place. Phase two, moral outrage, which is sort of where we have been for the last few years, also appropriate to its time and place. But we will win when we get to what I think of as phase three, which is the creation of climate change millionaires. And in a talk I gave recently, somebody asked me what I thought the most important technology of the, the most important thing that had happened in clean energy in the last year was, I think, expecting to hear some of the things that we'll be talking about later today. But this thing in my mind, the single most important thing that happened in clean energy in the last 12 months was that somebody bought Nest for $3 billion. And that whooshing sound you hear, that's not the sound of a wind turbine in the middle of Wind Alley someplace. That's the sound of a million 25-year-old heads going, what was that? And how do I get a piece of it? And that's how we win. Another anecdote along those lines, I gave a talk some months ago up at Harvard Business School. There are now 185 kids, students at Harvard Business School, enrolled in the Energy and Environment Club. Now, I'm sure there's 585 involved in the investment banking club. That's not my point. My point is that five years ago, there wasn't an energy and environment club at Harvard Business School. And today, 185 students are at least considering exploring this area professionally. That's a big deal. In the same vein, the next way where I think you can see that we are winning is that while there was a complete paucity, a drought of capital for this space over the last couple of years, for some good and obvious reasons, partly due to macro and exogenous events, partly due to micro events, and partly due to Washington. In point of fact right now, there's plenty of capital available for investment in this space. I'm personally involved with Andor aware of four different $1 billion funds being raised by private equity funds around the country to invest in the clean energy space. Some on the debt side, some on the tax equity side, some on the crossover side, some on the distress side. But the moral of the story is there is a lot of capital out there. There are also many new entrants. I don't want to go into tax equity as a structure and a concept, which will bore you all the tears, but suffice it to say that tax equity has principally been provided over the last 20 years by banks and insurance companies. There are now new entrants into the tax equity space, and those are the large corporates because effectively tax equity provides a credit against profits generated elsewhere in your business, and lots of corporate treasurers have come to understand the attractiveness of tax equity as a vehicle, and therefore by extension are playing a larger role and putting more money to work in the space. To continue this, to continue the success, the glide path that we're on, there are a couple of things we need to do. The first, again, is not a technology choice. We need to de-dramatize this stuff. People get paralyzed when they fear things. They don't act. Let me give you a simple example before talking about something maybe more nuanced. We shouldn't be calling these things green bonds. If you can price them, if they have cash flows, if they can be raided, if they can be sold in the public markets, they're just bonds. They're not green bonds, they're just bonds, and a whole new audience of people will be receptive to a discussion about bond investments who are not open to a discussion about green bond investments. Fear is polarizing, and we should not expect that communities and states and their elected representatives who come from areas whose businesses and business models and lifestyles are being threatened will go gently into that good night. We've done an unbelievably poor job as a community, as an industry, in hearing what those people have to say, and in talking to them in ways that they can, in turn, hear what we have to say. They fear jobs disappearing and the way of life disappearing. We're talking about climate change. We need to be talking about retraining. We need to be talking about job opportunities. We need to be talking about better health outcomes. We have those programs in place. We have the Good Jobs, Green Jobs program, the Trade Adjustment Assistant program, and the like, but we're still stuck in phase two, and we need to get to phase three. Partly, we have to do this because the fundamental challenge here is not technological, it's not financial, it's behavioral. The sharing economy is a critical step forward. I don't know how many of you have used Airbnb, which is gonna now be worth a gazillion dollars, or Zipcar, or Uber, or fill-in-the-blank, but we are rapidly moving down the path towards a shared economy, which has huge implications for energy because the lowest hanging fruit, which is my third point, is behavioral change. Doesn't cost anything. It just takes a really long time. The corollary to behavioral change, and the reason it's so important is, as a rule, you cannot finance your way to growth. You have to have structural demand. Over an extended period, incentives and subsidies don't work well, not for the reasons Washington thinks or argues about, not for picking winners and losers and not for whatever else people are talking about down here, it doesn't work well because it doesn't mirror current human behavior. It intends to shape behavior, which is incredibly important, but which takes a really long time, but the problem is that government programs don't last for a timeframe, a time period, required to actually change human behavior in a meaningful and sustainable fashion. Another reason that's important, in the sense that you can't finance your way to growth, is that financial innovation itself is one of the technologies I hope you'll focus on, if not necessarily today, at some point soon. Financial innovation is what actually permits extant technologies to be low-hanging fruit, to be implemented. One of the things that's curious to me, and I mean this in a positive light, is that innovation is a word that Washington is fascinated with. I think that's true for a couple of reasons. First is, no one really understands what it means. Second is, it doesn't cost very much relative to certain other kinds of programs, and the third is, you can innovate in every congressional district in the United States. So you can put little grants everywhere you need to put them. In the real world, and if you think about your own experience, I have to believe you'll agree with this, innovation is not linear. It's not man or woman, light bulb over the head, bench lab, and 20 years later, straight line, fabulous huge industry. Innovation is circular, there's a virtuous circle of innovation. Innovation begets commercialization, and commercialization begets further innovation. Most innovation is incrementalist in nature, because by definition, it's problem solving. It solves some problem that already exists. Many years ago, I taught the second year MBA class in entrepreneurship at Georgetown, the business school at Georgetown, and just as a thought exercise early on, you'd say, okay, you pick up a fork or a pen or a pair of sunglasses and you'd say, think of, you've got five minutes, think of three ways to improve that. Instantly, your mind is working, instantly, right? Well, a fourth prong, various kinds of UV filters, et cetera. Invent a fork, not so easy, right? Invent a new way of eating is way harder than improving a fork, and so one of the things I hope we will also focus on in innovation is how we innovate to get current technologies more successfully into the marketplace, and I think the answer to that, by and large, is financial innovation, and here's one of the reasons financial innovation is so important. What are three of the most important characteristics of clean power generation? They're capital-intensive, they're illiquid, and if they don't have bounded returns, they have at least knowable returns. Guess what? I spent 10 years of my life as a VC. Those three things are anathema to venture capitalists. We hate capital-intensive businesses.  So, in effect, we gotta come up with another way of thinking about financing innovation in the clean power generation space. Now, we've done that. We've got new views on solar finance, PACE, the PACE program, debt funds, the bonds, the green bonds, even net metering, and now the value of solar tariff pricing, which is beginning to replace the feed-in tariff pricing and the like, but we've got to keep innovating around that as well. Who does that innovation, that financial innovation? Well, the markets do, the private capital markets do, but they obviously rely on the government for something, and I think it raises, maybe it's my last point, this question of, can business do it all, do all of this, or does government in fact have a role? Not to be overly simplistic, but there are really two fundamental reasons to invest in anything, right? To make money or to serve a public good. Sometimes they're in alignment, and sometimes they're not. Indeed, one of the reasons government programs exist to invest in certain areas is because our elected officials and decision makers think that's important, but the outcomes are outside a timeframe relevant to the private sector and the capital markets, who have concluded that that particular technology cannot make money in a reasonable timeframe. And guess what? That's been the case in energy for decades. You know, the story of George Mitchell and fracking has become hegeographic at this point. You know, a child of immigrants, Greek immigrants, who invented and persevered under unbelievable odds to invent fracking. And it is a fabulous story, except that it's not true, which is not to disparage or to mean Mr. Mitchell's accomplishments. He stuck with it, he had a huge insight, he built an important business, and he contributed meaningfully to it, but it was a public-private partnership. Fracking and research on fracking dates back decades before George Mitchell got involved with it. The federal government was working on these technologies long, long before he got involved. He was able to benefit from basic science the government had done, applied R&D, tax policy support, a series of public-private shale drilling demonstration projects in the 1970s. The Gas Research Institute provided him assistance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And so it speaks to the notion, and maybe this is the third or fourth, whatever my point is, of ways to think about technology and innovation, which is, how do we bring the public sector and the private sector, which have similar but not identical goals and objectives, to bear? And I'd summarize it this way, as you think about the technologies you hear about today, and how to think about their role and our role in bringing them forward. Do they solve real problems? Do they solve problems in a timeframe that matters? Do they use resources appropriately, the least resources and the right resources from the right sector? Do they provide good to the greatest number? Do they create no unintended consequences? Do they optimize available capital? Do they make money in some timeframe that's meaningful? And can they get done? And that's why today, as we talk about innovation, let's talk about innovation in the context of innovation and deployment. Because the loan program, of which I was a member, focused on commercial scale and utility scale deployment. It's not better or worse than RPE, which is fantastic. It's different. They are places on a continuum, but it's a continuum. We have to keep our eye on deployment or innovation can't get there. So I hope as we talk today and we talk about these disruptive technologies, this will perhaps be helpful as a framework for thinking about it. Thank you.