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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of CRISPR Technology
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of CRISPR Technology
@B4VZR824wks4W
Do not use CRISPR in the use of improvement on a person/ making better, but allow if a genetic disease or problem arises
@B4VYWC74wks4W
Yes, the government and the states should be disclosed to any information a reliable and government approved team gets on anything to do with CRISPR
@B484DKC2mos2MO
Yes, but only so it cannot be used for eugenics. Tests on living cell cultures are fine, but not editing the genes of people or embryos.
@9Y3K9877mos7MO
Yes, regulate but do not stifle innovation and speed with early testing. Must take time getting these out to the masses. Instead of death sentences, inmates on death row should be required to give back to humanity with experimental testing
@9Y2DWVP7mos7MO
I think there should be limits on what we can do with it. We shouldn’t just be able to modify whatever we want.
@9X9KYFS7mos7MO
No, with Chevron overruled the government will not be able to keep up and make decisions that reflect the science and advice of experts
@9V4DN9M8mos8MO
Yes, with restrictions and regulation. It should be used for scientific purposes not cosmetic purposes.
@9TM5LWR8mos8MO
This should be regulated by the government, but under strict dual control by a top scientist and a top ethicist. It should NOT be regulated by politicians.
@9RRPPC6Constitution10mos10MO
Regulate is probably the correct term, it just feels too strong. Maybe the government should have access to the data, and regulate the legality of the growth and experimentation.
@9SMWQSR9mos9MO
It depends. If someone is willing to let the government do that, we should see how it works first before doing anything else about it
@9WF62BCPeace and Freedom7mos7MO
Use more research first, then make sure this doesn't affect the scientific process, and that it can still help people
@9R2JYH610mos10MO
Yes. If it is of benefit to a consenting adult, let them undergo procedure, so long as they understand the risks. There must be limits, however.
@9MMXP2DRepublican12mos12MO
CRISPR shouldn’t even be a thing. The government should regulate it to where it doesn’t get out of control.
@JcawolfsonGreen 12mos12MO
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.
@9MLGS341yr1Y
There is a lot of good crispr can do and I’m not educated enough on the bad stuff to answer this
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
