Should the government fund research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment?

Yes, while ensuring ethical research that does not lead to supporting ideals such as selective reproduction or eugenics

Yes, but only to treat agreed-upon classified diseases, as going beyond this is a slippery slope to eugenics.

Yes, however only after ensuring their is no risks in doing so and also at the consent of the people

Yes but they need to be very careful and only use research for diseases because this could easily lead to dark places like eugenics.

Yes, so long as the general public are not subject to it without their consent or knowledge. Fluoridation and its origin being a good example as to why health being in the hands of the federal government with the absolute final say is a bad idea.

No, as this could be misused for eugenics purposes.

Yes, however the government should also fund programs for lifestyle changes that can help to prevent and treat diseases

no private companies are more than capable of funding this type of research and other people are free to donate their own money to this type of research

Yes, while ensuring ethical research does not lead to supporting ideals such as selective reproduction or eugenics.

Yes, but on a case by case basis, and with safeguards in place to protect from "Big-Pharma" Corruption

Healthcare should be supported, and non-partisan orgs should be responsible for this and be allowed grants so that it isn't all coming from the same mass corps.

Yes, with a panel of genetic engineering experts monitoring the situation to determine what steps should be taken.

Yes, but put many safety regulations concerning ethical concerns. Make sure that research is ethical.

Yes, and use the worst criminals imaginable for testing

With the consent of the patients involved, the government should fund research in genetic engineering.

Yes, but use those who are mandated the death penalty as test subjects before releasing to the general public.

Yes, however I have very limited trust in our government not using this research for perverse use, even if the scientists are acting on ethical guidelines. They could easily have meanings of their data manipulated to serve a specific view point and make specific political, and MORE IMPORTANTLY RELIGIOUS, demographics overly excited on false claims.

The government should support government-funded research into somatic gene editing for disease prevention and treatment, as it provides crucial foundational knowledge and enables industry innovation for health improvements. However, funding for germline gene editing research in humans is prohibited by federal law due to ethical concerns about unknown long-term effects, consent from unborn individuals, and the potential for irreversible changes to the human gene pool. Additionally, potential risks include the exacerbation of health inequalities due to unequal access, the creation of new geneti…  Read morec disparities for underrepresented populations, and complex ethical issues related to human nature and eugenics, requiring careful public consultation and oversight.
Arguments for Government Funding
Foundational Knowledge:
The government's role in funding basic biological research establishes the fundamental understanding of cellular processes and molecular mechanisms, revealing "targets" for new therapies and technologies.
Enabling Innovation:
This government-funded knowledge discovery enables private industry to innovate and develop diagnostics and treatments, leading to improved health outcomes and saved lives.
Reducing Health Disparities:
Targeted funding for minority-focused genetic research and gene-environment interactions can help reduce health disparities rather than widen them.
Ethical Concerns and Risks
Germline Editing Restrictions:
Current U.S. federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for research on germline gene therapy in humans.
Unforeseen Consequences:
Germline alterations could have unknown long-term effects on fetal development and future generations.
Consent Issues:
Because individuals affected by germline gene therapy are not yet born, they cannot provide consent for the treatment.
Health Inequalities:
Access to potentially expensive gene therapies could increase health disparities, creating an unequal society where only the wealthy can afford them.
Exacerbating Disparities

This question is a duality one where I am questioning my decision in picking either yes or no. Generally, having the ability to remove and prevent diseases as well as create treatments for existing ones would be amazing for the future of our world but, this is essentially playing God which has proven to be bad many times. I do not mean playing God in a religious sense but being able to engineer life itself is the same as being a powerful being. This would also create a living crisis in the far future with many reasons. For example, if humans are to live without diseases, there would be nothin…  Read moreg to worry about besides manmade crimes and things of those nature. Being able to live for a long time without having your time cut short would make food and water harder to come across because the population would definitely increase without a doubt if there is nothing to show us otherwise that this is a bad idea for the future of Earth and its' life.

Yes, but the government should get a share of any marketable products that result from research paid for with public funding.

Yes, but with careful guidelines in place to keep the focus on preventing diseases instead of cosmetic uses.

there could be unintended or unfortunate implications with the idea of this seeming like a eugenics nightmare, which would need to be avoided at all costs considering the ethical issues that may arise.

Yes, but only with strict long-term safety testing. Genetic editing could be life-changing for people with serious diseases, but we don’t fully understand the long-term effects. Funding should come with strong ethical review and transparency

Yes, if truly used only for the prevention and treatment of diseases, and it should be highly regulated.

No this sounds a little like eugenics but posed as a benefit to society. We should focus on developing cures and better treatments for individuals suffering from genetic conditions instead of eliminating them completely from the gene pool.

I understand where this is coming from, but this has a massive potential to be exploited by the ultra-wealthy

yes, only if it can be guaranteed that genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment is its ONLY USE.

I think we can, but we have to be careful how we use this to make sure it's safe for those involved.

This is scary ground but to be honest pretty cool about 50/50 due to knowing what it will really used for and what i would think of doing it could make us pretty awesome or something horrible

Yes, but only with direct and transparent oversight from congress as genetic engineering can be potentially very dangerous

No this further leads to the devaluation of human life deemed undesirable like people with Down syndrome, this is eugenics

No, it is not up to the government to use our tax money on genetic engineering. It should be held up to vote.

Do small regulated trials first, and if they work, continue and expand so that those who would like to partake may.

YES... the government should fund research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment, conditionally. Such funding must be morally bounded, scientifically rigorous, transparently governed, and spiritually grounded. We must pursue healing, not perfection; compassion, not control; reverence, not redesign. Science must serve the sacred, never supplant it.

Yes, but it must be heavily monitored to prevent selective reproduction & eugenics; it also shouldn't compromise affordable heathcare

Not until after much further research to determine whether it would actually improve public health without any unintended consequences whatsoever.

Yes, but it would depend on what kinds of applications. There needs to be clear and strict ethnical standards via something like a Belmont Report.

Yes, but with legistlation in place to stop it from being a slippery slope to engineering 'superior' people

Yes, as long as it is only used for treatment of genetic disorders for health and not used for negative actions such as for eugenics.

Yes but keep a heavy eye on it for medical curing only not to make super soldiers from bith. If someone wants to be part of the military they may go through a screening about becoming part of the program to enhance their physical abilities to better service their country. There should also be set at a certain threshold and once over the threshold all party's involved should be captured and given trail under inhumane human tested and augmentation

If the genetic testing relates to diseases that will benefit many and if test is done on a wide range of people.

Yes, but we must be careful to avoid this technology being abused to advance eugenics through the pursuit of eliminating neurodiversity or any genes that any group in power might consider "undesirable" out of bigotry, hatred, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other form of discrimination. We must assure that it cannot be used by the wealthy to produce "superior" children who are stronger, smarter, etcetera. We must be wise in choosing where we draw the line and enforce it strongly.

Yes but with conditions/restrictions/frequent monitoring and without compromising affordable healthcare

On principle probably yes, but 1) I don't trust this government to do anything right, moral or to represent my interests and 2) any humans "playing God" at a certain point isn't a good idea, and we should be cautious.

yes, but within reason. we don't want to end up making MRSA 2.0 or something horrible but i value the importance of the technology and benefits of it

Yes and no because it's unethical We are all the same, but wouldn't you want your kid to live his or her life to the fullest without having setbacks?

Yes, but we must make sure that what modifications are made is safe for the public with proper testing.

It requires an actual expert to test it. It should also require WHO (World Health Organization) and the SOAS (Society of Applied Sciences) to approve testers.

Yes, but the government should do checks on the research to determine how much money is needed for funding

Yes, as long as it's ethical with informed consent and there is a strict protocol and compensation measures in place

Yes, but there needs to be a required set of guidelines and oversight to protect the public health. Research needs to be specific and closely monitored.

Yes but ONLY for disease prevention and treatment. Monitor it carefully so we know people are not using it wrong

I feel they should increase the amount of money that goes into this, but not make it a drastic amount

Yes, but the process for the experiments should be held to beyond the highest standards to prevent another covid 19 incident.

Yes, I think the Government should fund research into Genetic Engineering for disease prevention and treatment, as well as for other uses.

Yes, provided it is limited to prevention of deadly diseases or diseases that cause immense suffering.

No, we as a society are too obsessed already with extending life spans and avoiding death. Sometimes we need to just let nature take its course.

Yes, the government should fund research into genetic engineering specifically for disease prevention and treatment, with strict ethical oversight and prohibitions on non-therapeutic genetic enhancements.

Yes, but with high levels of containment to prevent something similar to COVID-19 from happening again.

Yes, but only on willing participants who are able to leave whenever, and they get paid and compensation for any damage caused

I beleive diseases at the top of the food chain killing many should be prevented and funded however small diseases that do little to no damage should not be funded as much

government should fund research against disease and treatment, but genetic engineering is a slippery slope

No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, weak government, and capitalism. Allow it to be more privatized instead.

Yes, but only to those who strongly strongly want it and as long as no long-term health defects happen.

No, for the sake of capitalism, freedom, federalism, weak government, checks and balances, low taxes, and low national debt.

I believe that we should do it but only AFTER long term studies are done to see the possible health effects from doing so

Yes, provided they establish strict ethical guidelines and invest in research regarding the potential impact of longer lifespans and a growing population

Should the new leaders preventing disease in only options are givens honours inside body’s treatments

Genetic engineering should only be properly performed on consenting subjects who are aware of the risks.

Yes, so long as there is complete transparency and with sufficient testing of side effects before public usage

In the future yes, but right now it should not be a main priority for humanity unless major breakthroughs are achieved

I don't really think the government should be spending money on scientific research to be honest, it should be private businesses paying for the research instead of the tax payers.

Yes, government funding for research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment is generally considered beneficial, offering the potential to revolutionize healthcare and address currently intractable diseases, but requires careful ethical consideration and regulation.
Here's a more detailed look at the arguments for and against government funding in this area:
Arguments for Government Funding:
Potential for Transformative Treatments:
Genetic engineering, particularly gene editing technologies like CRISPR, holds immense promise for treating and even curing diseases…  Read more caused by single gene mutations, like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
Addressing Unmet Needs:
Many diseases, particularly rare or genetic diseases, lack effective treatments, and genetic engineering offers a potential path to developing new therapies.
Public Health Benefits:
Research into genetic engineering can lead to advancements in disease prevention and early detection, benefiting the entire population.
Economic Benefits:
Developing new treatments and technologies can create jobs and stimulate economic growth in the biotechnology sector.
Promoting Scientific Innovation:
Government funding can support research institutions and foster collaboration between researchers, leading to breakthroughs in the field.
Arguments Against Government Funding:
Ethical Concerns:
Genetic engineering raises complex ethical questions, particularly regarding germline editing (modifying genes that can be passed down to future generations) and the potential for misuse or unintended consequences.
Access and Equity:
New treatments may be expensive and inaccessible to many, potentially exacerbating health disparities.
Safety Concerns:
Genetic therapies are relatively new, and long-term safety and efficacy are still being studied.
Regulation and Oversight:
The development and use of genetic engineering technologies require careful regulation to ensure safety and prevent misuse.
Funding Priorities:
Limited government

This is a touchy subject. Do I think it could be extremely beneficial to have solid medicine research using genetic engineering, of course. But it would need to be done ethically and checked for misuse. These kinds of things should be heavily tested before ever being administered to humans, and I believe for the most part we do that. I just don't want us to be willy nilly with genetic modification.

Yes, as long as there is strict regulation to prevent eugenics and designer babies. Using genetic engineering to prevent Fatal Familial Insomnia or Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva is different from using it to erradicate autism or Down's (both of which can be high-functioning and have impacts on the individuality of a person) or eliminate "the gay gene".

yes, but we need to be careful that genetic engineering doesn't fall into and lead to eugenicist ideologies and practices

Only for disease, and not for other traits, such as eye color and skills. This could devolve into eugenics.

Yes, but only if it respects the dignity of human life and does not involve embryonic stem cell research.

It sounds like it would be great for curing disease, so yes I would like to see further funding. But caution needs to be taken to ensure it is not used for unethical means ie. Eugenics.

No, because this would be an unscrupulous and downright immoral/unethical reboot of eugenics. #NeverAgain.

Yes, but only in disease prevention/treatment. Genetic engineering and modification is a very important and useful, but it should only be used for certain things.

I'm in the middle. There are various ethical concerns regarding genetic engineering. At the same time, genetic engineering could be a vital tool for disease prevention and treatment.

Yes, a group of humans (who desire it and consent it) should achieve peak genetics with the use of engineering

I do not personally believe in altering genetics. I think that money could be better spent elsewhere, but if other people want it then sure.

Only in very specific cases and never with a profit motive/ as a private venture, as any use of genetic engineeringhas the risk of becoming eugenics

Yes, as long as it is only used for diseases and not anything like gender, looks, or any other superficial traits.

Fund natural cures instead. Invest in science and natural cures that can heal our diseases and help us live longer. Make a nationalized healthcare system that helps with the best in alternative and healthy medicine. It can also be mainstay medicine but it HAS to be proven to be 100% healthy.

No. While I do support the idea of using genetic engineering to prevent or treat diseases, I don't trust the government/industry to always use the technology responsibly.

No, genetic engineering is a scientific marvel that should be explored on plants or individual cells, but not on humans. Doing so is a slippery slope towards eugenics.

Yes, but it should remain specific to health reasons and for no other reasons such as choosing desirable genetic traits

Yes, but specifically for extremely harmful/damaging disabilities that'd make the life of the newborn painful/short