CRISPR is a powerful tool for editing genomes, allowing for precise modifications to DNA that allows scientists to better understand gene functions, model diseases more accurately, and develop innovative treatments. Proponents argue that regulation ensures safe and ethical use of the technology. Opponents argue that too much regulation could stifle innovation and scientific progress.
@9NS8J5GLibertarian13hrs13H
No. But violation of law should permanently put any entity abusing the technology and/or using it unethically out of business immediately.
@9NQRP2R1 day1D
Yes, but the government should keep an eye out for unethical research that can potentially lead to consequences.
@9NMCQC63 days3D
Yes but similar to above, regulations should be determined by a non-partisian third party lottery system of education individuals from a breadth of relevant fields
@9NDKNSF 1wk1W
Yes, within reason to ensure it is being researched & tested ethically but not to the point where it is stifling real-world research and use.
@7YS3KJPIndependent 1wk1W
I feel the best approach to this is likely to pull a Belmont Report and work with a team of universal ethicists from either the individual or group university level to hash out some basic guidelines that have a good chance of being agreed upon.
@LucidLibertarian 1wk1W
No, but a non-government organization should closely monitor its use and clearly disclose the risks involved.
@9N8629DIndependent 1wk1W
Yes, but via proper oversight boards comprised of individuals with understanding of the processes to ensure fair regulation and continued innovation in scientific process
@9N7PGBC1wk1W
Government doesn’t need to constantly regulate things BUT this should be a willingness participation type situation and not something that’s unbeknownst to a patient. If they(the patient) want to
opt in they should be allowed. But always give the option
@9N73RR72wks2W
Crispr is an abomination. Humans are not meant to be edited or experiment on in this way, or at all.
It's a loaded question but I like the progression society has shown with genetic modifications. I believe it to be more helpful than harmful as of today.
@9N2FJTH2wks2W
Yes, at the state or local level. There should be basic laws implemented to protect human life and dignity.
@9MYMGYN2wks2W
No, but there should be a semi-annual review with HHS to determine that nothing presenting a risk to the population is being done. If there is something questionable, an alternative path could be renewed at that time. But nothing from legislators who are not trained scientists.
@9MSCWJN2wks2W
No, I feel like its a persons choice if they want genetic modifications or not, its like botox, it can harm you but people use it at their own risk. There could be an age restriction though.
@9MRF6G22wks2W
Yes, but be careful with what practices they use and make sure the people involved have the right qualifications to do these modifications.
@9MNKM6BIndependent3wks3W
Yes, because some of the technology could prevent chronic disease or disabilities. As a person with ADHD I would never wish anyone to be born with it. A person wouldn't want to be born anemic if there was a chance they could of had their genes changed.
@9MNK2RH3wks3W
We should see if we can use it to make the next generation of Americans superhuman and immune to genetic diseases. In other words optimize our dna to be resilient to illnes. Healthier, smarter, physically stronger. Anything beyond that is highly unethical and becomes Eugenics.
depends, if it is used to help with life-threatening diseases than yes, but if it's to just make an individual's life better like to prevent albinism than no.
@9MNGKL23wks3W
Yes but only if it's a deadly disease which is common in the family and the parents/guardians consent to the genetic modification.
@9MN8QK73wks3W
Not regulate but maybe oversee while maintaining all things ethical and moral.
@9MN8P43Republican3wks3W
This should only be used in the cases of trying to remove a deadly inherited disease
@9MN6C943wks3W
It depends on whether it is safe and what it will be used for
@9MMZYZ83wks3W
Yes, only to make a genetically passed disease disappear, but not to tamper with appearance or neurodivergences.
@9MMZL733wks3W
Somewhat. I believe that this technology should be regulated and ONLY used for terminal diseases or something similar.
@9MMY8BQ3wks3W
Yes. This sounds like humans trying to play God. Kind of like Frankenstein.
@9MMY3YN3wks3W
If the person has a diseases like sickle-cell anemia then yes, but if it just for personal gain then no.
@9MMY27HWomen’s Equality 3wks3W
Yes, I believe it’s important for Darwinism to happen and for natural selection to happen
@9MMXP2DRepublican3wks3W
CRISPR shouldn’t even be a thing. The government should regulate it to where it doesn’t get out of control.
@9MMWPQ83wks3W
If it is used within safe and ethical boundaries then I think it is ok to proceed.
@9MMW4Z8Republican3wks3W
Depending on the exact modifications it is being used for
There should be no genetic modifications to human DNA
@9MMFB6P3wks3W
Yes, this technology would be unethical if used to edit genomes in humans
Yes, although it should be regulated by not letting scientists modify humans for looks.
@9MMD6HLProgressive3wks3W
Yes, but only in terms of preventing disease, disorders, and significant health issues. This should not be applied to physical appearance.
@9MMBKGM3wks3W
Yes but only if the people(s) involved, including fetuses and embryos, consent.
@JcawolfsonIndependent 3wks3W
Maybe, I believe basic ethical oversight is necessary, whether it stems from the government or the scientific community. However, we must allow and perhaps encourage innovation that benefits society.
@9MM9XSW3wks3W
no, the government should wait for at the very least, another 20 years. this type of technology is not safe cannot be determined safe without lots of testing and real life evaluations.
@9MM8BR9Independent3wks3W
Used to get rid of or cure cancer, I'm all for it. Used to make someone taller or smarter or faster....no.
@9MM7L2M3wks3W
to make a bloodline disease disappear YES, to create a homunculus NO
@9MM6SDXRepublican3wks3W
Only if they are used in medical ways, not to make designer babies
@9MM6S2CWomen’s Equality3wks3W
Yes, if it doesn't pose a dangerous threat to society or evolution in general
Yes, but each state should vote on many of the regulations.
@9MM5C623wks3W
They should only disallow negative or politically radical gene modifications
@9MM55633wks3W
Yes and no, as long as it doesn’t affect a life..Mainly depends on the situation.
@9MM4HQS3wks3W
I think it depends specifically on who is doing the editing of genomes. It can be helpful but it depends in general.
@9MM3T5R3wks3W
I think it could be useful but also should be warning
@9MM2F723wks3W
Yes, should be used only in necessary medical procedures.
@9MLZQLY3wks3W
if used the right way if it could prevent genetic diseases or any other health problems im all for it.
If the modification is being done to help correct something that is wrong, then I think it's good. If it's to change your kids eye color, that's just unnecessary.
@Dry550Independent 3wks3W
Yes, ensure the overseer’s of the regulation are not corrupt and are ethical themselves and that they don’t get in the way of progress
@9MLSFSS3wks3W
As long as this doesn't go to the eugenics route then its good
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...