Genetic engineering involves modifying the DNA of organisms to prevent or treat diseases. Proponents argue that it could lead to breakthroughs in curing genetic disorders and improving public health. Opponents argue that it raises ethical concerns and potential risks of unintended consequences.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Response rates from 3k London voters.
90% Yes |
10% No |
90% Yes |
10% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 3k London voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 3k London voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from London voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9RKQQV25mos5MO
Most disease prevention falls under the NHS, CDC, WHO. I would like division between this researcher and these governing bodies.
@9QXV2G75mos5MO
Perhaps, but heavily regulate what counts as a disease - such technology could easily turn into eugenics.
@9QQ2ZZD6mos6MO
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
@9QJWJ696mos6MO
Yes, but absolutely no gain of function or anything bordering on gain of function on viruses etc. that do not exist in nature (yet).
@9Q6F2KX6mos6MO
only genetic therapies for diseases such as cancer/heart disease/Alzheimers , not neurotypes or learning disabilities
@9PL54X26mos6MO
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.
@9PFK8JF6mos6MO
Maybe. There should be limitations on how this research is conducted including ethical, environmental, and humanitarian reasons.
@9NZQVNH7mos7MO
Yes, but in a controlled way, you have to be super careful about what you're managing out of the population
Join in on the most popular conversations.
