That’s fine, but not what you wrote before.

> This technology has substantial potential for social harm

Yup, like everything.

> and should not be pursued until all of those concerns are addressed.

Nope.

Because death itself has direct harm — indeed, it is widely regarded as the either the worst or among the worst things one person can do to another — the burden of proof is on those who say it would be bad to delay death as much as possible.

I mean, we already delay death as much as possible with all kinds of medical interventions.