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

Yes, we should only use it to prevent diseases and disorders instead of altering physical appearances

Yes, we can always relax regulations later but can’t undo tragic outcomes from reckless use of new technologies

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.

No, people should be able to do whatever they want as long as its not harming anyone else

No, and the government should not interfere with the private sector

I agree that it is useful for preventing genetic diseases and is very important in that sense but it can lead to the topic of eugenics

Yes, but for the prevention of serious genetic conditions rather than for so-called "designer babies"

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

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

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

Yes, but should allow for the assessment, research and eradication of specific diseases as passed by parliment (i.e cystic fibrosis, DMD and huntingtons)

I think this in itself is problematic. However if the disease poses an obvious threat to a persons' life then I completely understand the necessity

No, it promotes Eugenics and ideas on what makes a human lesser and better solely due to physical traits will form.

Ban CRISPR technology, or only permit it to prevent serious problems such as those that will eventually kill the baby.

It should be regulated, but only to ensure there is no corruption or malpractice. This research and technology could be used as a biological weapon in certain forms, but its primary function should be research for the betterment of human health.

It depends on the severity of the conditon, Something non critical such as autism or a minor genetic condition should not be phased out, However this may be good in cases where the condition is life limiting or terminal.

yes, overall I believe that it can be an amazing form of healthcare and it should only be used in healthcare and should be outlawed to be used in cosmetics so yes it should definitely be regulated.

It should be regulated by the government in conjunction with scientists and researchers with all decisions checked and passed through an ethics committee and legal team to ensure no loopholes can be exploited

Yes, ensuring only to cure diseases and disorders. The technology should not be used to improve healthy individuals.

it shouldn’t be regulated but it should be discussed on certain genetic modifications so that it doesn’t go against the human rights act or is used for malicious intentions.

Possibly to a degree, not knowledgeable enough on this subject. Morality and ethics will need to be considered and upheld by law

the government are very bad at policing other matters like rivers. Why would they be better at this? We need a better way of doing this. Meanwhile are we playing with something that could cause untold side effects ...interferring with nature too much?

Research needs funding. If govt does that, part of NHS money (active patients) is taken off. What should be the balance, should be decided by specialists.Govt should not outsource specialist’s jobs to commoners (like Brexit)

Yes, but only for necessary medical treatment ie risk-factor genes for alzheimers and cancer and not for eugenics

In the case of genetic conditions or diseases, I agree with its use, but CRISPR could be used for aesthetic eugenics and in this case, it should be regulated so as to avoid the latter.

No, let the research continue, just don't lie about gene editing being a 'vaccine' both are useful technologies.

Regulated but still permitted.In the case of gmo, regulated too often means banned. The case is more naunced.

Yes, why should the rich be able to genetically modify from diseases but natural selection for the poor?

Yes but this must be addressed with birth control - making people live longer means more people are around and in many places this is unsustainable

Yes but only for humans who would need it the most and could change their life i.e. people with certain disabilities which could be fixed.

In certain cases of genetic disorders it should be used but the use of it for aesthetic purposes is morally incorrect.

Keep it in testing and make sure financial compensation is given to people willing to trial them out

Yes but only to genetically modify a gene that could could harm or severely reduce the quality of a child's life.

Yes but only basic regulations for example no child can be implemented with genetic modifications or no modification which can shorten life span.

Yes, depending on its use. It should be used as a research tool to understand how to improve health, and reduce illness. Improving medical and scientific knowledge. However, it should NEVER be used for negative application.

Yes, but not at the detriment of those who cannot afford to benefit from (ethically regulated) modifications.

Under strictly limited circumstances - specifically to prevent deadly genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis, rather than enhancement or customisation.

I can see the addvantage however have concerns where the people funding and government would dictate how and who would have access

Yes, provided they seek the advice and guidance from experts within the field of CRISPR and genetic modification.

This is something which should most certainly have oversight but it should be regulated by expert groups who actually, truly and fully understand implications of this technology, rather than turned into a two-side issue which can be used to generate some kind of populist rhetoric

Provided such modifications are used solely for the treatment and prevention of genetic disease/affliction. Especially regarding congenital afflictions.

This shouldn’t be currently relevant there isn’t the tech to do this effectively and we are too fixated on money in this time fix the planet first.

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, 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. 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 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.

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 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

Yes, regulate, but this isn't a huge societal danger. So this must not be driven by anti-scientific ignorance.

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

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 for safe and suitable modifications. Not, human hamsters.

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

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

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

No, not regulated, but monitored and kept secure. I.e. in secure facilities designed for the containment of lethal diseases/virus'

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

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

CRISPR and CRISPR-CAS9 themselves are very beneficial and should be used in medical situations ie targeted therapy

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, only if such regulation ensures that positive results for scientific breakthroughs and medical treatments

Could making genetic modifications increase social inequalities, or would it reduce them?

Do you believe using science to extend human lifespan is more of an opportunity or a danger?

How would you feel if someone edited their DNA to increase intelligence—fair game, or unfair advantage?

Can you name a potential positive or negative impact on nature and ecosystems if gene editing were widely applied outside humans?

What responsibility do you think we have to regulate how much technology like this is used in our society?