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

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

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.

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

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.

Yes, it should not be used for cosmetic purposes, but it should be contained to be studied and used to dance our medical knowledge.

No but there should be oversight by a qualified medical community whether government or professional.

As long as nothing is forced on anyone, they should be able to do whatever they want. Ethics are only the problem of the ones doing the act, until it begins to affect others.

Yes, I think it's wise to be careful when it comes to the human genome, but do not limit the research.

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

Yes, it should be allowed but only for medically necessary reasons such as preventing Alzheimer's or sickle cell.

Yes, but with applicable regulatory laws that allow for a case to be taken to trial should an organization using CRISPR commit harmful acts against an individual or other group.

Yes, though only to make sure we don't decide to use it on a massive scale without the public knowing. It could be used on human cells and potentially comatose patients whose families allow it. It could cure certain genetic diseases one day.

Only if they are used in medical ways, not to make designer babies

I think the research is important and good. At some point when the promise has come to fruition it may require government intervention

Oooo this is hard...Research should continue but under some sort of scrutiny. don't want to modify humans to the point of non- recognizable humanity, or in the pursuit of power and evil. In the science fiction "Forbidden Planet" the Krell had evolved to the edge of pure energy...but the ego released "monsters from the ID" so they killed themselves off. A better question here would be should the potential of technology in all science be regulated to protect humanity. science fiction has a way of becoming reality.

Yes, disallow the use of CRISPR for cosmetic purposes, but allow it for medical purposes, such as treating diseases.

Yes, regulation would ensure safe and ethical use, but we need to make sure it is not being used to alter physical appearances, only for genetic diseases and health concerns.

As of right now government involvement is unnecessary and should only be implemented if CRISPR causes problems.

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

Yes, but only to make sure it’s used for genetic defect and disease issues and not just changing genetics to get the exact physical makeup of the child you want

Nor Congress or the POTUS should be able to regulate this, but an already established ethical research institute would be appropriate.

Yes, but only to ensure safety and ethical use of the technology, not to stifle innovation or scientific progress. 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 the standards that it will only be used for proper medical research, not for unreasonable genetic modification.

No but if proven correct, it could be used to help people with severe medical conditions to live a better life.

I think there should be some regulations regarding ethical use of CRISPR, mostly no tube babies, but research into things like the elimination of disorders should be greatly pursued.

Yes to ensure safe practices are happening, but also I think that it can be very dangerous and expensive

Yes, but only for genetic modifications on the basis of medical intervention for health risks, mutations, or diseases and disorders. Should not be used for cosmetic applications.

Yes to a certain extent I think the technology can be beneficial however it’s very important to realize that it can get ethically iffy

Yes, but only to a certain degree. It should still be used safely, but the scientists should still be allowed to make progress

Regulate CRISPR to ensure it is not used unethically, but for the most part it should be unregulated to promote innovation.

The government can regulate it to a certain degree, because it can get to a point where it isn't ethical. However, they cannot regulate it completely.

Yes, but with strict regulations. It can be helpful for genetic diseases, but it shouldn't be used beyond the medical field or to harm anyone.

yes but only for health purposes, like preventing diseases, disorders, or significant health issues.

Not knowledgeable on this issue to have a true stance. Generally lean towards no on genetic modifications.

It should be regulated to a point to allow for new innovations and scientific findings but also have a set limit to it to avoid corruption and unethical research techniques.

Yes, but only on volunteers that agree to undergo this technology. When it is 100% confirmed to be safe. It can be used on anybody that allows it.

one hand, safety and semi ethics, on the other hand, chuck brimble speech, midnight burger. for any official departments, regulations for sure, private is another matter though.

Do not use CRISPR in the use of improvement on a person/ making better, but allow if a genetic disease or problem arises

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

Yes, and CRISPR should only ever be used for disease prevention/treatment and only with extensive research and understanding; it's ability to alter the human genome is too great to misuse.

Yes, only if the genetic modifications are to improve the quality of life medically and not to alter humans socially.

I belive they should regulate CRISPR technology some for safe and ethical use, but not too much to where it is harder to research how it works.

yes, but because of the cost of CRISPR, it is not very accessible for everyone. More studies should also be furthered to ensure safety and success of the program.

Yes, but research should be furthered to ensure the safety of it. Cost of CRISPR is extremely expensive, making it not affordable for everyone. More studies should be done to lower cost and ensure safety.

While genetic modification could lead to major breakthroughs in healthcare, it could also have a massive impact on social issues if given to the wrong people. it entirely depends on the situation and I believe more research needs to be done before coming to a yes or no conclusion.

Yes, but they should allow its use for purposes that convey health benefits and only restrict it for cosmetic reasons

Yes, the government should regulate CRISPR technology to ensure it is used safely and ethically, focusing on the treatment of serious diseases while prohibiting non-therapeutic or cosmetic genetic modifications.

No but the details of an individuals genetic modifications should be transparent and public information

if it is being used for cures,, no. if it is being used for genetic enhancement or non-biological means, yes

Yes, but an extensive amount of research and surveys should be conducted to decide what can be done with CRISPR and what qualifies as something worth altering, then, using this knowledge, it can be regulated.

Yes the government should regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications because if there is absolutely no regulation then we would change too much and slow down the innovation and scientific progress.

Yes we should not tamper with people like they are robots they are humans who were created in the image of God with a soul destined to be with God through the Holy Spirit.

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.

It depends on what they would be using CRISPR on and they need to guarantee safety. Most likely yes.

Regulate it so that it is only used for diseases and disorders, not rich people customizing babies. Offer it free of charge to people who's life depend on it.

Yes, but only to prevent and/or protect those who would modify their body as a result of an uncheck mental health condition.

Yes, most experts agree that the government should regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications due to the significant ethical and potential societal risks associated with this powerful gene editing tool, including the possibility of unintended consequences and the potential for eugenics, making strict oversight necessary to ensure responsible use and protect public health.
Key points supporting government regulation:
Ethical concerns:
Modifying human germline (sperm, egg, or embryo) could have far-reaching implications, impacting future generations without their con…  Read moresent, raising significant ethical questions about designer babies and eugenics.
Safety concerns:
CRISPR technology is still relatively new, and potential off-target mutations (unintended edits at other locations in the genome) could lead to serious health problems.
Public perception:
Public opinion is often wary of genetic modification in humans, and robust regulations can help build trust in the technology.
Potential for misuse:
The accessibility of CRISPR technology could lead to misuse by individuals or entities without proper oversight.
Possible areas of regulation:
Restrictions on germline editing:
Most experts advocate for a ban on using CRISPR to modify human germline cells, allowing only somatic cell editing (modifying cells in a living person to treat disease).
Strict oversight of research:
Thorough review processes by ethical committees and regulatory agencies to assess the scientific merit and potential risks of proposed CRISPR research.
Informed consent:
Clear and comprehensive informed consent procedures for individuals participating in CRISPR-based therapies.
However, some argue for cautious approach to regulation:
Innovation potential:
Overly strict regulations might hinder vital scientific research and therapeutic development using CRISPR.
International collaboration:
Establishing consistent global regulations is crucial to prevent "gene tourism" where individuals seek treatments i

It should be fine tuned more and reduce pricing making it more affordable allowing it for proper treatments for more than just the rich

Yes, but only in certain points, I feel like human genetic modification could be good for fixing birth defects, but could get out of hand very easily. I don't trust the government to make the right decisions about it, though.

This should be banned and not allowed unless for a medical reason like fighting cancer or something. Keep it away from plants and animals and anything else.

Depends on the use. Suppose it's for physical modifications for a fetus that isn't born yet, then no. If it's for life-threatening conditions, then yes.

Some regulation may be necessary to curb unethical use cases, but this doesn't mean we should stifle innovation and expand the avenue of this technology.

Depends on what genetic modifications are. as long as they help the person become healthier not more dangerous.

This kind of technology is a key to fix incurable illness. However, overuse of this technology would make this society more unfair and chaotic. Therefore, except for the genetic disease, it should be regulated

Yes, but it has to be a careful balance between reducing disease and mortality and full blown eugenics

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.

To an extent, but only for severe cases, such as Down syndrome or life threatening conditions and diseases like progeria.

They should only intervene if it is completely necessary, but most of the time I think its unnecessary for the government to be stifling the process of creating break through technology.

Yes, It should be prevented from use, because all people are made equal and in God's Image, NOT MAN'S!

I think CRISPR technology could be used for great things, but to prevent unethical things from happening, minimal restrictions should be added.

Yes, the idea that human beings should be genetically perfected is a slippery slope towards dystopia

They shouldn't completely prevent it but they should make a punishment for it being used in bad ways such as switching an unborn babies gender genetically

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

I think that their needs to be laws put in place to ensure that CRISPR isn't misused but can be used to help treat people.

Yes, and we shouldn’t be genetically engineering anything at all. It’s never a good idea to play God with these things

If we're talking about using CRISPR to remove neurodivergence in babies, yes, because that's just eugenics. Treat neurodiverse people like actual humans and pass policy that helps them. If we're talking about removing autoimmune disorders or preventing any physical disability that harms the person's well-being, no. The tech still has to be used wisely, but I think ensuring autoimmune disorders are a thing of the past is good.

There would need to be a lot of testing and safety measure to ensure that CRISPR won't be dangerous.

it should be regulated, but not only in the hands of the wealthy. If we can prevent severe debilitating genetic disease, everyone should have access to increase quality of life.

Yes, we should allow progression, but implementation should be regulated because it can communize us and get rid of uniqueness.

Maybe, in the instance of developing cures for life-threatening diseases, genetic diseases, or disabilities to those who wish for treatment.

Yes, because it could get out of hand and make sure any test subjects consent to the potential after affects of the modification.

Yes, but if something were to go wrong in the treatment the hospital of whoever provided the modifications be the one to pay for the fix.

Genetic manipulation of DNA is dangerous and can lead to more problems, I feel. However, if this technology advances the government should regulate its usage guidelines.

They can do and execute it in morality, no test and verification on humans before claryiying it safe.

Individuals with a degree in biomedical sciences specifically a PhD would be granted permission to regulate and educate the public on CRISPR with MD or BS degree holders working in conjunction with doctorate level scientists to ensure that the technology is being used ethically. Government officials that have no educational background in the area of biomedical sciences and the specific area of genetics related to CRISPR technology should not be regulating the use of this technology. Government officials lack understanding of genetics and it is a huge disservice to our country to give individuals the power to regulate such topics without a thorough education.

No, this will just lead to slower breakthrough and more expensive regulations over time that will cause the medical industry to drag its feet.

So that people know what is being customized into them by modifications and it needs to be specific.

This is not a yes or no question- yes for curing disease and saving lives as part of healthcare- no for the super wealthy to be able to buy "super babies"

I believe that CRISPR is best used when necessary for people with harmful/extreme genetic diseases/disabilities, and should be offered when it is completely researched with its pros and cons for the long-term. As it is a new use of technology and not completely safe, knowing that the studies,have shown CRISPR participants have died from the practice,as well with the probability of increased risk of unknown genetic health problems that could be passed down to generations.

This is a loaded question that doesn't allow for an answer that does not support human genetic modification.

No, as long as the companies using this technology publicly disclose the risks and benefits to the modified individuals

This question is a hit and miss it depends on what the people on a problem would like to happen so if they want it to be done than yes but if they don't want anything to be done then I wouldn't want anything to happen.

If it benefits in helping preventing or curing diesease then yes, but if it is used for bad intentions then no.