Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsScienceStarted 2yrs agoActive 2 days ago

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

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.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of CRISPR Technology

@DuckEli
#1 Expert Pundit
@7ZJCHWN
#2 Expert Pundit

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of CRISPR Technology

@foshy
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 48.7k America voters.

65%
Yes
35%
No
61%
Yes
34%
No
3%
Yes, we should only use it to prevent diseases and disorders instead of altering physical appearances
1%
No, people should be able to do whatever they want as long as its not harming anyone else
1%
Yes, we can always relax regulations later but can’t undo tragic outcomes from reckless use of new technologies
0%
No, and the government should not interfere with the private sector

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 48.7k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 48.7k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9MMD6HL from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only in terms of preventing disease, disorders, and significant health issues. This should not be applied to physical appearance.

 @9R39MRM from Missouri  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, we can always relax regulations. We can't undo regrettable or tragic things that may occur if we allow it freely.

 @78MJYZM  from Indiana  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only in terms of preventing disease, disorders, or significant health issues. Never for physical appearance/ designer babies

 @9RBTJRM from Illinois  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, however, it needs to be highly regulated, and should only be used to fix any health issues, not make super children with specific gender, eye color, hair color, etc. We are a vain society, this should be used to weed out health issues.

 @9R5MQF6 from Alabama  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only for germ line (reproductive) mutations that could be passed on to children. Gene therapy to treat single gene mutation disorders in adults should be permitted and subsidized.

 @B87XQXZ from California  answered…6mos6MO

It should only be used on genes that carry diseases that are basically a death sentence and makes you unable to be independent for the rest of your life.

 @B6DTX5P from California  answered…9mos9MO

government can subpoena labs that do use this type of technology and only have the power to shut down operations only if it poses a threat to public safety

 @9MM8BR9 from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

Used to get rid of or cure cancer, I'm all for it. Used to make someone taller or smarter or faster...no.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

“Throw out everything you thought you knew about this election.”

By Chuck Todd, NBC News:We are getting awfully close to the moment when it might be fair to say, “Throw out everything you thought you knew about this election.”We are now going from a presidential campaign that left the public disinterested and at times disgusted it to a campaign that I could see generating an electorate that might be as interested, if not more so, as in 2008 and 2020, two of the highest-turnout elections in the last 50 years.If the Democrats do end up with a new nominee — and it’s looking more likely by the hour that they will — that, too, is likely to suddenly trigger interest in what the new nominee has to say, which in turn could engage the electorate in a way that the pre-debate version of this campaign just didn’t.But before we get to this campaign reset, the Democrats have to figure out what their ticket looks like and, more important, how quickly they can get their ticket selected and certified by the party.As of this writing, my sources indicate to me that about the only folks who are still trying to rationalize Biden’s staying in this race all share the last name of Biden, with the possible exception of Biden’s longtime chief political strategist, Mike Donilon — who, as the gatekeeper of the data that makes it to the president's desk, is starting to get blame along with Biden and his family for Democrats’ being in this position.

▲  2015 replies