CRISPR is a powerful tool for editing genomes, allowing for precise modifications to DNA that allows scientists to better understand gene functions, model diseases more accurately, and develop innovative treatments. Proponents argue that regulation ensures safe and ethical use of the technology. Opponents argue that too much regulation could stifle innovation and scientific progress.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
No
@9MNZH8L1wk1W
unregulated genetic modifications can lead to awful side effects and is a gateway to eugenic practices
@9MPWSXM1wk1W
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.
@9MQM3KX1wk1W
It depends on whether someone may be born with a genetic defect.
@9MNTBJJ1wk1W
Yes, but only for things that are necessary and considered essential
@9NCKPCD4hrs4H
The use of CRISPR should be regulated in germ line therapy, but not otherwise, because more research is important.
@9N9SBBNLibertarian1 day1D
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.
@9N7DJSF3 days3D
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!
@9N7DJSF3 days3D
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
@9N3L82V4 days4D
I do not trust the government's competence and understanding of CRISPR technology to enact sensible and proportionate regulatory legislation.
@9MXK5WR 7 days7D
Yes, but only if this prevents a child from being born with a life-threatening illness or deformity.
@9MW2SXT1wk1W
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.
@9MTHNZV1wk1W
Yes for safe and suitable modifications. Not, human hamsters.
@9MTFF3L1wk1W
Yes. Providing it's only used for improving medical conditions.
@9MT6PQJ1wk1W
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).
@9MT3K3Y1wk1W
Yes but for genetic conditions which cause poor health
@9MSW6V91wk1W
Yes, it’s a personal choice but it should be regulated
@9MSTBWP1wk1W
Ban this technology. its too susceptible to use for nefarious purposes
@9MS7BGJ1wk1W
Defends if geneotype is harmful and needs changing in order to save a life
@9MRZYHR1wk1W
Yes, but there should also be independent bodies that check what the government does also and keep them in check by law.
@9MRWM4V1wk1W
Scientific scrutiny and ethical regulation for such research should be strengthened
@9MRRD7T1wk1W
Yes but with very strict guidelines ensuring it is only benefiting the quality of the child’s life and not gender or appearance
@9MR7G5Q1wk1W
Yes but proportionate and I do not know the current regulation so cannot answer
@9MR4L9V1wk1W
yes, but only if it positively impacts the child (e.g. prevents them from being born with life-threatening illnesses)
@9MR3KH51wk1W
Only if it is helping people suffering with diseases already
@9MR2FHC1wk1W
Yes, but only for medical conditions not those who are wanting specific phenotypes for children through IVF
@9MQZ3R61wk1W
Medical professionals/ an organisation that is fully competent, qualified, and gains no finance from its use should regulate it instead.
@9MQXGFJ1wk1W
I do not have enough information on this topic to make a judgement
@9MQW2KM1wk1W
It should be regulate by people who understand what it is.
@9MQS8BM1wk1W
yes to esnure quaility and standards, no to limit options
@9MQPKNV1wk1W
Yes, so that we don’t end up with people having designer babies
@9MQNZ5V1wk1W
It depends on whether a person has a serious genetic defect
this would be intresting to happen however it needs to be extremely regulated
@9MQM5PF1wk1W
In human trials there should be more regulation and precaution, but outside of human trials, opportunity for innovation should be encouraged.
@9MQLWMR1wk1W
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
@9MQ2PKW1wk1W
This is not widely well known so unbamr to take a view without more information
@9MPL3WJ1wk1W
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.
@9MNY2JH1wk1W
Yes, as long as no extremes are taken in terms of ethics
@9MNVFG51wk1W
Only for conditions such as Huntingdon's, not neurodiversity etc
@9MMTQ6X2wks2W
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.
@9MMPPJHLiberal Democrat2wks2W
Yes - if only to help those with ailments such as poor eyesight or narrow bone disease
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...