 So, that's one of the things that's actually made this technology so, I would say, democratizing, right? It's just become widely available. You don't have to have a lot of money. You don't have to have special connections. You don't have to know somebody who knows somebody. You can just, you know, you can just get ahold of it. And then in terms of more sort of DIY, do-it-yourself kind of science, well, you know, the Indiegogo, you know, my neighbor down the street three or four years ago, actually, you know, texted me one day and said, hey, Jennifer, did you see that Indiegogo was selling a CRISPR kit? I was stunned. And actually they do, right? So then some smart scientists, young people just right out of college at the Innovative Genomics Institute tested it and it didn't work. So, but they've started working with some high school teachers around the Bay Area who wanted to get access to this for their students. And they're now working on a kit that actually does work, that allows students not to edit embryos, but to edit yeast and turn them green and you know, things like that. So the students can actually learn about how these molecules work and what they enable because we hope that part of the, you know, we think that part of the path forward with all of this is education. It has to be about teaching young people about this, what it is, how it works, and how to think about using it responsibly. All right, I'm going to pick up on that last phrase, using it responsibly. So I don't want to in any way minimize these enormous potential, beneficent therapeutic uses and we should definitely talk more about them. But using it responsibly, if we're talking about a couple hundred bucks, you know, democratizing CRISPR experiments is one way to put it that sounds like great. We get lots of people invested in the technology, get a bunch of experiments, we'll get quicker innovations. But if you were to go back to the Manhattan Project idea, like democratizing nuclear weaponry, sounds nightmarish. So again, the philosopher in me wants to, you know, make a realist take, take a realist, you know, picture of human beings and intentions and the professional community that at the moment at least with respect to Dr. Hatt and China is, you know, roundly condemned the CRISPR-edited baby, if it's fully democratized at low cost in any corner of the world with the relatively minimum amount of know-how given the low barrier to entry, why rely on the good intentions of people or better should we rely on the good intentions of people? You mean should we rely on good intentions versus putting in place some kind of legal framework or, you know, something? Yeah, well, this is something that, you know, many people are discussing this right now. And the challenge is that I think even if you wanted to put in place a legal framework, the reality is that right now, you know, with the way that science and really our societies are global, whether we like it or we don't, it's just a fact. And so if we here in the United States, for example, agreed that, you know, this is just too dangerous of a technology, let's not allow scientists to use it, you know, that would have its own issues of, you know, debate and trying to figure out how you would enforce such a thing. But I think the reality is that this kind of use and various uses of gene editing or any other technology like this would forge ahead in other countries. And so would the U.S. want to take a position of a backseat to that or do we want to instead, hopefully, be playing more of a leadership role? And, you know, that's, and again, there's no right or wrong answer to it necessarily, but I myself think that we're better off being engaged and trying to, if we can, play more of a leadership role.