"Why? It's already happened, and I've already filmed it. Who benefits from a reconstruction?"

"The victim's family. For a start."

I thought: Possibly. But would a reconstruction really spare their feelings? And no one was going to force them to watch the documentary, in either case.

I said, "Be reasonable. This is powerful stuff; I can't just throw it away. And I have every right to use it. I had permission to be there—from the cops, from the hospital. And I'll get the family's clearance—"

"You mean the network's lawyers will browbeat them into signing some kind of waiver 'in the public interest.'"

I had no answer to that; it was exactly what would happen. I said, "You're the one who just declared that revival is obscene. You want to see it banned? This can only help your cause. It's as good a dose of frankenscience as any dumb luddite could ask for."

Gina looked stung; I couldn't tell if she was faking. She said, "I have a doctorate in materials science, you peasant, so don't call me—"

"I didn't. You know what I meant,"

"If anyone's a luddite, you are. This entire project is beginning to sound like Edenite propaganda, 'Junk DNA!' What's the subtitle? 'The biotechnology nightmare?'"

"Close."

"What I don't understand is why you couldn't include a single positive story—"

I said wearily, "We've been over this before. It's not up to me. The networks won't buy anything unless there's an angle. In this case, the downside of biotech. That's the choice of subject, that's what it's about. It isn't meant to be 'balanced.' Balance confuses the marketing people; you can't hype something which contains two contradictory messages. But at least it might counteract all the hymns of praise to genetic engineering everyone's been gagging on lately. And—taken along with everything else—it does show the whole picture. By adding what they've all left out."