Thank you for that question. This has been an ongoing dialogue we've had with stakeholders. I think the more we learn from stakeholders, the better and richer our regulatory and program regime will be.
It's highly complex in terms of dealing with and regulating a scientific environment like this, and we want to make sure we get it right and that we can be responsive to new emerging science, to stakeholder concerns.
Putting everything in legislation might work for the moment, but then if we need to revisit some of the detailed parts, going through legislative revision is not going to be the best way to be responsive. Putting more in the regulatory and program sides would give us that flexibility to continue the dialogue with stakeholders moving forward.
We found, through going across the country to talk to researchers, university administrators, and others working with human pathogens that the ongoing dialogue, whether it's on a licensing regime or on security, allows us to hear their concerns and to put that in the regulatory framework and the program design, which we think is a more fitting place.
When you look at just the legislation itself, there may be a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, but when we very clearly talked to stakeholders about our public health interests in meeting those concerns so that innovation and good public health research in the country can continue, and about having a regulatory regime and program design that respond to those stakeholders, people have--in my view--walked away satisfied.