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

Yes, but collectively monitor and assess regularly the amount of regulation so that scientific progress can still be made.

It should be regulated in ways that do not prevent potentially life-saving research from being carried out.

It should be allowed, however it must only be used strictly for irreversible, Life threatening genetic conditions such as Patau's syndrome or Edwards Syndrome. Genetic discrimination should not exist.

yes but start with people with diseases that affect their quality or life with their consent. eg. ms patients

The use of genetic modification on humans, food or anything that is joined to the food chain should be banned.

As long as it is used for cases such as people who wish to be parent but both carry a defective gene, so they can safely have a child for example

Yes, they should go through all ethics and research authorities before carrying out any form of modifications to human genetics.

The use of CRISPR should be regulated in germ line therapy, but not otherwise, because more research is important.

If the Government understand it and have experts then they could work with scientists to understand and support.

Yes, following relevantly-qualified scientific guidance from an independent (nota donor or shareholder of any political party) party.

Yes, every human has value this implies that we know what is best for humans and that we have the arrogance to think that the currently able are the fittest for the survival of the human race when they may be it's dead end!

No, every human has value this implies that we know what is best for humans and that we have the arrogance to think that the currently able are the fittest for the survival of the human race when they may be it's dead end!

Academic researchers can use CRISPR, however it should not be available to members of the general public for personal use

I do not trust the government's competence and understanding of CRISPR technology to enact sensible and proportionate regulatory legislation.

Yes, but only if this prevents a child from being born with a life-threatening illness or deformity.

Genome editing in human reproduction could be used for certain purposes, like single gene disorders, but a public debate is needed

Draft sufficient legislation based on scientific and eithical findings as technology progresses.

Yes for safe and suitable modifications. Not, human hamsters.

Yes. Providing it's only used for improving medical conditions.

I think that if they are for treatments then they should be subject to the same clinical testing as any other intervention. I think that the use of gene editing on embryos should be restricted as it is currently (it’s allowed but they aren’t allowed to develop past a certain stage).

Yes but for genetic conditions which cause poor health

Yes, it’s a personal choice but it should be regulated

Ban this technology. its too susceptible to use for nefarious purposes

Defends if geneotype is harmful and needs changing in order to save a life

Yes, but there should also be independent bodies that check what the government does also and keep them in check by law.

Scientific scrutiny and ethical regulation for such research should be strengthened

Yes but with very strict guidelines ensuring it is only benefiting the quality of the child’s life and not gender or appearance

Yes but proportionate and I do not know the current regulation so cannot answer

yes, but only if it positively impacts the child (e.g. prevents them from being born with life-threatening illnesses)

Only if it is helping people suffering with diseases already

Yes, but only for medical conditions not those who are wanting specific phenotypes for children through IVF

Medical professionals/ an organisation that is fully competent, qualified, and gains no finance from its use should regulate it instead.

I do not have enough information on this topic to make a judgement

It should be regulate by people who understand what it is.

yes to esnure quaility and standards, no to limit options

Yes, so that we don’t end up with people having designer babies

It depends on whether a person has a serious genetic defect

this would be intresting to happen however it needs to be extremely regulated

In human trials there should be more regulation and precaution, but outside of human trials, opportunity for innovation should be encouraged.

It depends on whether someone may be born with a genetic defect.

I think CRISPR is an amazing tool with so many applications. I believe that we should be able to screen for deadly or life altering illnesses and use CRISPR to remove them, if the parents wish. We have to evolve somehow

This is not widely well known so unbamr to take a view without more information

Yes, but only if this prevents a child being born with a life threatening illness or deformity. Not for cosmetic or increase of brain, muscle or social ability.

Where is the ethical line in when DNA should be modified and when it shouldn’t be modified. In the sense of if someone has a test completed while pregnant that states the baby may have a birth defect what is considered as defect that requires modification. In addition to this why is DNA modification required as ethically the modification could cause further birth defeats and problems that were unnecessary.

Yes, as long as no extremes are taken in terms of ethics

Only for conditions such as Huntingdon's, not neurodiversity etc

Yes, but only for things that are necessary and considered essential

Yes, but CRISPR should be allowed for all somatic medicinal uses that have no other alternative treatment. There should be restrictions on enhancement purposes and the use of germline gene editing.

Yes - if only to help those with ailments such as poor eyesight or narrow bone disease