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.

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

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, 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

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.

It should be regulated, but only to ensure that its use is ethical. Scientific progress is important, but not more important than practicing said science humanely.

The people should regulate it so as to avoid having the government or scientists use it to enforce eugenics

The government should strive to be technologically literate and our laws should be able to match the speed at which technology is advancing

No, but they should allow transparency to the public on what it is they are doing, the purpose, and how much is being funded.

Yes, though regulations should be for monitoring and public transparency into research rather than restriction on progress and innovation

i dont really know bc one hand its helpful on another its dangerous so its something I need to research more

Yikes. At this point, America isn't leading science in much dna and so they should be regulated because they're in kindergarten. As far their participation in global learning, there should be less regulation from the US.

Yes once it has been adequately studied and proven safe for human use, and is solely used for the requested purpose of treating disease and illness

It should only be used in a moral way to help people continue to have a normal life not to create life

There should be some regulation, but not enough to majorly interfere with innovation and scientific progress.

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

I think there should be limits on what we can do with it. We shouldn’t just be able to modify whatever we want.

No, I think it shown be used to change someone's gender under the age of 21 but should be used to help people that are struggling with their heath and to make innovative treatment

I think this should be an optional experimentation, that is thoroughly thought and talked through. I think that all risks should be conversed and each individual should understand the weight of the experiment for the people and for their own personal health.

No, and the government should not mitigate the progress of scientific revelations that could cure the incurable.

some regulations should be in place as long as it doesn't specifically effect the research being made

I think for the betterment of humanity, removing genetic illnesses is essential. But eugenics is terrofying