Indeed, I think we see that in some fields there's been recognition early on that the new and emerging technologies would likely be very controversial. The best way to address that—to understand what the risks are, what the aversions are and what values are at stake—does entail having not just the scientists make those decisions on whether to advance or not advance, or whether it's more beneficial or detrimental, scientifically speaking; it's also seeing it from a perspective of societal values. Bring in those ethicists and other disciplines. Sociologists can assist in this regard. All sorts of other experts can help articulate the risks so that there can be a better understanding of trade-offs and whether to advance or not with certain controversial technologies and/or regulate them in such a way that they would remain very confined under oversight, making sure there's no trespassing of the societal willingness to try to advance them.
Oftentimes, behind some of the controversial technologies, certainly in health, there are lives at stake. I'm sure there are often willing patients who would want to see those advancements. We know that other individuals are averse to certain approaches. It's about how we bring that out to facilitate a consensus or to facilitate a very controlled, tightly regulated approach so that we can make sure there's no greater harm than necessary, but if there are benefits to be gained, we don't leave those aside for too long. When they're matters of health and illness and lives, oftentimes we are looking to find solutions to those conditions.