Try the political quiz

Parties  ›  Policies  ›  Science

Green Party

The Green Party of the United States was founded in 1996. The party’s ideology is based on environmentalism, nonviolence,…

Overview Policies Themes Ideology Discuss

Greens policy on crispr technology

Filters

Topics

Should the government regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications?

  ChatGPTYes

Greens answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

Yes

The Green Party has historically emphasized the precautionary principle, environmental protection, social justice, and non-exploitation, which aligns with the idea of regulating technologies that could have profound impacts on human health, societal equality, and ethical boundaries. Their platform often includes strong regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies to ensure they are used responsibly and equitably, suggesting they would likely support government regulation of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications to prevent potential misuse and ensure it does not exacerbate social inequalities or harm the environment. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Given the Green Party's historical stance on environmental protection, social justice, and the precautionary principle in the face of new technologies, it is unlikely they would support an unregulated approach to CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications. Their platform typically advocates for strict oversight of technologies that have the potential to impact human health and the environment significantly, to prevent unethical use and ensure equitable access and benefits. Therefore, they would likely disagree with the notion of not regulating CRISPR technology. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Official answer

This party has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this party’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this party’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this party about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Updated 18hrs ago

Party’s support base

Green Party Voters’ Answer: Yes

Importance: Less Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 158 voters that identify as Green.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this party’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Greens policies? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1yr1Y

Biden retaliated against a Dem who called for him to step aside

Rep. Hillary Scholten, a first-term Democrat who flipped a traditionally Republican seat in 2022, was booted last week from from a coordinated effort between the the Biden campaign and the state party to elect candidates up and down the ticket, according to four people with knowledge of the situation, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly about private discussions.It happened soon after she called for Biden to step aside, those people said, which angered many Democrats behind the scenes. The Biden campaign was contacted by POLITICO Wednesday evening; Scholten was reinstated Thursday morning.“Rep. Scholten is welcome at the coordinated campaign and we look forward to campaigning with her this fall,” said Mia Ehrenberg, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, when asked about Scholten’s removal from the coordinated campaign.The initial decision to remove Scholten from the joint effort — which would have essentially cut her off from the combined field effort between the presidential, Senate and House races — came from the Michigan state party, according to two people familiar with the discussions. If she had remained excluded from the coordinated effort, it could’ve meant that when Democratic organizers were campaigning in her district, they would tout Biden and the party’s Senate nominee — but not Scholten.The Michigan Democratic Party declined to comment. But two people familiar with discussions said Scholten had specifically infuriated state leaders when she spoke out against Biden — on the same day that the president was already visiting Michigan — without informing them of her plans, according to the two people.“This decision was made in Wilmington, full stop,” a Democratic operative who’s worked on competitive House races said. “Punishing her isn’t just petty and vindictive, it’s self-defeating.”An official for the Biden campaign denied that: “This did not come from Wilmington.”

▲  2014 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…11mos11MO

Trump’s Doom vs. Harris’s Hope as America Decides Its Fate

Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris closed out their campaigns in the final hours before Election Day in starkly different moods: The former president, often appearing drained at arenas that were not filled, claimed that the country was on the brink of ruin, while the vice president promised a more united future as energized supporters chanted alongside her, “We’re not going back.”In stop after stop, the presidential rivals essentially offered up two competing versions of reality on Monday and into early Tuesday. Mr. Trump repeatedly raised the specter of unchecked immigration and the dangers of Democratic policies as he spoke to crowds in North Carolina and Pennsylvania before closing with a midnight rally in Michigan.With a comparatively more optimistic message, Ms. Harris crisscrossed Pennsylvania, which holds 19 electoral votes that could decide the race. Stopping in Scranton, Allentown and Pittsburgh before a nighttime rally in Philadelphia, Ms. Harris talked about bolstering the economy and restoring federal abortion rights. She asserted that Americans were “exhausted” and ready to move on from the politics of the past decade.About 30 miles to the southwest, Mr. Trump was in Reading, Pa., broadly portraying undocumented immigrants as mentally ill criminals and calling those accused of crimes “savages” and “animals.”Both leaned on Hispanic supporters as they tried to rally Latino voters. The pro-Harris rapper Fat Joe, who is Puerto Rican, practically shamed his fellow Latinos in Allentown as he asked, “Where’s your pride?” Mr. Trump, still facing fallout from his rally in New York at which a comedian called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” brought Roberto Clemente Jr., the son of the Puerto Rican baseball legend, to the stage at a rally in Pittsburgh.But Mr. Trump, reaching the end of a grueling marathon of a campaign that began in 2022, looked visibly weary, battling fatigue in front of listless crowds, though he was relatively more upbeat and energized in Michigan. Ms. Harris, still appearing fresh after a three-month sprint, appealed for unity and pressed the contrast to her rival without uttering his name.“The measure of a true leader is based not on who you beat down,” she said. “It is based on who you lift up.”Despite the sharply different tones, polls suggest the race remains tight, with the final New York Times/Siena College surveys showing the candidates tied or holding only narrow leads in all of the seven battleground states.

▲  611 replies