+

Answer Overview

Response rates from 363 Eco-Socialism voters.

87%
Yes
13%
No
87%
Yes
13%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 363 Eco-Socialism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 363 Eco-Socialism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Eco-Socialism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9RKQQV2answered…5mos5MO

Most disease prevention falls under the NHS, CDC, WHO. I would like division between this researcher and these governing bodies.

 @9QXV2G7answered…5mos5MO

Perhaps, but heavily regulate what counts as a disease - such technology could easily turn into eugenics.

 @9QQ2ZZDanswered…6mos6MO

Only if the benefits are given freely to the population. If tax payer money has funded the developments then the taxpaying user has already paid. Companies should not profit from this funding

 @9QJWJ69answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but absolutely no gain of function or anything bordering on gain of function on viruses etc. that do not exist in nature (yet).

 @9Q6F2KXanswered…6mos6MO

only genetic therapies for diseases such as cancer/heart disease/Alzheimers , not neurotypes or learning disabilities

 @9PL54X2answered…6mos6MO

I like the research I don't like the spending. Researching future diseases can be funded by insurance and pharmaceutical profits, then when that disease arrives they can profit from prevention.

 @9PFK8JFanswered…6mos6MO

Maybe. There should be limitations on how this research is conducted including ethical, environmental, and humanitarian reasons.

 @9NZQVNHanswered…7mos7MO

Yes, but in a controlled way, you have to be super careful about what you're managing out of the population