Do you think a discussion of policy implications should somehow ignore relevant policy considerations? It's helpful for authors to point out how they think the

Do you think a discussion of policy implications should somehow ignore relevant policy considerations? It's helpful for authors to point out how they think their work fits into the broader scheme of things. They correctly identify that a high cost to benefit ratio might make people interested in regulating it; they also correctly identify that practical concerns make that difficult. There is no advocacy there. Even if there were, it wouldn't be inappropriate to say "hey, there's a downside to this; we recommend trying to fix that."