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

Yes, but only in terms of preventing disease, disorders, or significant health issues. Never for physical appearance/ designer babies

Yes, however, it needs to be highly regulated, and should only be used to fix any health issues, not make super children with specific gender, eye color, hair color, etc. We are a vain society, this should be used to weed out health issues.

Yes, we can always relax regulations. We can't undo regrettable or tragic things that may occur if we allow it freely.

Yes, but only for germ line (reproductive) mutations that could be passed on to children. Gene therapy to treat single gene mutation disorders in adults should be permitted and subsidized.

government can subpoena labs that do use this type of technology and only have the power to shut down operations only if it poses a threat to public safety

No but there should be oversight by a qualified medical community whether government or professional.

Yes, I think it's wise to be careful when it comes to the human genome, but do not limit the research.

Yes, it should be allowed but only for medically necessary reasons such as preventing Alzheimer's or sickle cell.

Yes, but with applicable regulatory laws that allow for a case to be taken to trial should an organization using CRISPR commit harmful acts against an individual or other group.

As long as nothing is forced on anyone, they should be able to do whatever they want. Ethics are only the problem of the ones doing the act, until it begins to affect others.

Used to get rid of or cure cancer, I'm all for it. Used to make someone taller or smarter or faster...no.

Yes, though only to make sure we don't decide to use it on a massive scale without the public knowing. It could be used on human cells and potentially comatose patients whose families allow it. It could cure certain genetic diseases one day.

Yes, it should not be used for cosmetic purposes, but it should be contained to be studied and used to dance our medical knowledge.

Only if they are used in medical ways, not to make designer babies

The government should allow CRISPR for curing diseases, but set limits so it can’t be abused for cosmetic or non-medical reasons

Moderate regulation but not overbearing. Allow for scientific freedom but still make it accessible to the general public.

i dont love government regulation, but i dont love un checked gene modifications so maybe i want a little bit but not alot

Yes, but only around clear consent of the patient and regulation of procedures that could cause more harm than benefit

I think it should be allowed to be tested but only with permission and a legal contract from the person who is to become the test subject.

Needs to be regulated to only benefit health conditions and not Genetically Modified to the best traits.

In certain cases yes they should, but governmental testing of genetic modifications may prove to be interesting

Yes, however not explicitly for enhancement, but for preventative measures against deadly diseases and possibly cancers

Only if it is being used to create weapons or "perfect" humans - but not if it is being used to help cure disease and genetic deformities

I feel its bound to happen eventually. From a technological standpoint, it could be a massive advancement but it could be considered an ethical dilemma

Yes, but for the benefit of people such as public health or for research of diseases, not to genetically modify babies looks.

Yes, if the right people are in charge of it and can actually ensure that the tool will be used ethically.

they should only regulate genetic changes that affect superficial things. if its for disease prevention that is okay, but things like height, metabolism, eye color, hair color, skin color, and arguably mental disorders should be regulated in some way preferably by the people not the government

Although I believe the government should not meddle in scientific research and advancement, the possibility of a rogue scientist using CRISPR unethically is too high, at least in my opinion, to be left unchecked

If it works 100% of the time, then yes. Cancer has been one of those illnesses that had no simple cure.

Yes, but ensure it's use only for the prevention of disease, not for the use of designing the genetics of children

CRISPR technology for gene editing brings a complicated debate about when it is ethical to use. For example, some believe that it definitely should not be used for conditions such as down-syndrome or autism, while others would prefer to completely get rid of disabilities such as those. Some believe that humans should not edit genes at all for religious reasons. I personally think that the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications should be allowed, but only in certain contexts. For example, such technology could be very helpful towards society if used to prevent certain heredit…  Read moreary chronic illnesses, such as sickle cell anemia maybe. Where it should not be used is for changing the physical traits that simply affect how someone looks, such as eye color, hair color, skin color, facial features. It could lead to issues such as colorism, eugenics, and racism becoming worse.

Yes, but only via an independent committee comprised of impartial and disinterested parties that make sure that the only restrictions have to do with public safety, and do not restrict opportunity of access

Very situational, if used to treat diseases yes, if for purposes not useful in a medical aspect, No.

Yes, set ethical standards that prevent individuals from using the technology to build a perfect child and focus only on genes tied to diseases and disabilities.

I think that if the person has a genetic disease or something fatally wrong that is genetic, CRISPR would be a great way to try and solve that problem. Otherwise, it is a last resort.

It should be heavily monitored by human relations and conventions, but it could be a wonderful thing.

It should be between legal and consenting adults, no children to be made, shouldn't happen, CRISPR should be sued

Yes, only if the child would die without the treatment but parents cherry picking what they want is not okay.

No, CRISPR use and development should be allowed to grow unrestricted and become a core component of human development.

Yes, most experts and governments agree that the use of CRISPR for human genetic modification requires government regulation due to safety concerns, ethical implications regarding germline editing, and the potential for societal disruption. Regulations differ worldwide, but typically involve oversight of gene therapy, restrictions on germline modifications, and public discourse to establish acceptable uses of the powerful technology. The debate centers on balancing potential medical benefits with risks like off-target edits and long-term, unpredictable effects on future generations.
Reasons…  Read more for Regulation
Safety Concerns:
CRISPR technology is not perfect and can cause unintended "off-target" edits or only partially modify cells, leading to potentially harmful effects.
Ethical Concerns:
Modifying the germline (heritable changes) raises profound ethical questions about the moral status of human embryos, the potential for unintended consequences for future generations, and the idea of human "enhancement" versus "treatment".
Societal Impact:
Widespread use could lead to unforeseen consequences for the human gene pool, raise equity issues, and create a black market for unregulated and potentially dangerous procedures.
Lack of Scientific Consensus:
There is no universal agreement within the scientific community or the broader public on the safety and ethics of various CRISPR applications, particularly for germline editing.
Current Regulatory Landscape
International Variation:
Regulations and attitudes toward human gene editing vary significantly across countries.
Focus on Somatic vs. Germline:
Many countries prohibit or heavily restrict heritable germline editing while permitting somatic (non-inheritable) gene editing for specific medical treatments.
Oversight Mechanisms:
Regulations can include requirements for safety assessments, approval processes for clinical trials (like those overseen by the U.S. FDA), and bans on using federal funding for research involving human embryos.
Public and Demo

We should only use CRISPR for people who have diseases that heavily impact them and can only be treated with CRISPR.

Yes, but with supervision on what they are specifically using the technology for. This way they can still make innovations without abusing the technology.

I don't feel the government is capable of comprehending the potential impacts of this technology and that perhaps another new coalition of scientists and ethicists, as well as experts from other areas, as well as youth speicializing in science, should hold forums to determine HOW this technology can be regulated.

Only use to change genetic mutations that will harm or make the kid unable to survive. If they can survive and grow up then we shouldn’t do anything about it.

There should definitely be some regulations, but I do think it is a good idea to look into helping the people who need this most.

If they can somehow take out most of the consequences about how lethal this could be in the long run, I will agree with it.

Humans are made as they are, people should not go out of their way to make themselves genetically “better” than others. Keep the purpose exclusively medical and scientific, not commercial or recreational.

I lean more towards the side of saying 'no' because while it can lead to a path of human speciation, I'd prefer it to happen through natural selection

As of right now government involvement is unnecessary and should only be implemented if CRISPR causes problems.

Yes but keep a heavy eye on it for medical curing only not to make super soldiers from bith. If someone wants to be part of the military they may go through a screening about becoming part of the program to enhance their physical abilities to better service their country. There should also be set at a certain threshold and once over the threshold all party's involved should be captured and given trail under inhumane human tested and augmentation

Yes, but only to make sure it’s used for genetic defect and disease issues and not just changing genetics to get the exact physical makeup of the child you want

Nor Congress or the POTUS should be able to regulate this, but an already established ethical research institute would be appropriate.

Yes, but only to ensure safety and ethical use of the technology, not to stifle innovation or scientific progress. We must be careful to avoid this technology being abused to advance eugenics through the pursuit of eliminating neurodiversity or any genes that any group in power might consider "undesirable" out of bigotry, hatred, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other form of discrimination. We must assure that it cannot be used by the wealthy to produce "superior" children who are stronger, smarter, etcetera. We must be wise in choosing where we draw the line and enforce it strongly.

Yes, but with the standards that it will only be used for proper medical research, not for unreasonable genetic modification.

No but if proven correct, it could be used to help people with severe medical conditions to live a better life.

I think there should be some regulations regarding ethical use of CRISPR, mostly no tube babies, but research into things like the elimination of disorders should be greatly pursued.

Yes to ensure safe practices are happening, but also I think that it can be very dangerous and expensive

Yes, but only for genetic modifications on the basis of medical intervention for health risks, mutations, or diseases and disorders. Should not be used for cosmetic applications.

Yes to a certain extent I think the technology can be beneficial however it’s very important to realize that it can get ethically iffy

Yes, but only to a certain degree. It should still be used safely, but the scientists should still be allowed to make progress

Regulate CRISPR to ensure it is not used unethically, but for the most part it should be unregulated to promote innovation.

The government can regulate it to a certain degree, because it can get to a point where it isn't ethical. However, they cannot regulate it completely.

Yes, but with strict regulations. It can be helpful for genetic diseases, but it shouldn't be used beyond the medical field or to harm anyone.

yes but only for health purposes, like preventing diseases, disorders, or significant health issues.

Not knowledgeable on this issue to have a true stance. Generally lean towards no on genetic modifications.

It should be regulated to a point to allow for new innovations and scientific findings but also have a set limit to it to avoid corruption and unethical research techniques.

Yes, but only on volunteers that agree to undergo this technology. When it is 100% confirmed to be safe. It can be used on anybody that allows it.

one hand, safety and semi ethics, on the other hand, chuck brimble speech, midnight burger. for any official departments, regulations for sure, private is another matter though.

Do not use CRISPR in the use of improvement on a person/ making better, but allow if a genetic disease or problem arises

Yes, the government and the states should be disclosed to any information a reliable and government approved team gets on anything to do with CRISPR

Yes, and CRISPR should only ever be used for disease prevention/treatment and only with extensive research and understanding; it's ability to alter the human genome is too great to misuse.

Yes, only if the genetic modifications are to improve the quality of life medically and not to alter humans socially.

I belive they should regulate CRISPR technology some for safe and ethical use, but not too much to where it is harder to research how it works.

yes, but because of the cost of CRISPR, it is not very accessible for everyone. More studies should also be furthered to ensure safety and success of the program.

Yes, but research should be furthered to ensure the safety of it. Cost of CRISPR is extremely expensive, making it not affordable for everyone. More studies should be done to lower cost and ensure safety.

While genetic modification could lead to major breakthroughs in healthcare, it could also have a massive impact on social issues if given to the wrong people. it entirely depends on the situation and I believe more research needs to be done before coming to a yes or no conclusion.

Yes, but they should allow its use for purposes that convey health benefits and only restrict it for cosmetic reasons

Yes, the government should regulate CRISPR technology to ensure it is used safely and ethically, focusing on the treatment of serious diseases while prohibiting non-therapeutic or cosmetic genetic modifications.

No but the details of an individuals genetic modifications should be transparent and public information

if it is being used for cures,, no. if it is being used for genetic enhancement or non-biological means, yes

Yes, but an extensive amount of research and surveys should be conducted to decide what can be done with CRISPR and what qualifies as something worth altering, then, using this knowledge, it can be regulated.

Yes the government should regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications because if there is absolutely no regulation then we would change too much and slow down the innovation and scientific progress.

Yes we should not tamper with people like they are robots they are humans who were created in the image of God with a soul destined to be with God through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but only so it cannot be used for eugenics. Tests on living cell cultures are fine, but not editing the genes of people or embryos.

It depends on what they would be using CRISPR on and they need to guarantee safety. Most likely yes.

Regulate it so that it is only used for diseases and disorders, not rich people customizing babies. Offer it free of charge to people who's life depend on it.

Yes, but only to prevent and/or protect those who would modify their body as a result of an uncheck mental health condition.

Yes, most experts agree that the government should regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications due to the significant ethical and potential societal risks associated with this powerful gene editing tool, including the possibility of unintended consequences and the potential for eugenics, making strict oversight necessary to ensure responsible use and protect public health.
Key points supporting government regulation:
Ethical concerns:
Modifying human germline (sperm, egg, or embryo) could have far-reaching implications, impacting future generations without their con…  Read moresent, raising significant ethical questions about designer babies and eugenics.
Safety concerns:
CRISPR technology is still relatively new, and potential off-target mutations (unintended edits at other locations in the genome) could lead to serious health problems.
Public perception:
Public opinion is often wary of genetic modification in humans, and robust regulations can help build trust in the technology.
Potential for misuse:
The accessibility of CRISPR technology could lead to misuse by individuals or entities without proper oversight.
Possible areas of regulation:
Restrictions on germline editing:
Most experts advocate for a ban on using CRISPR to modify human germline cells, allowing only somatic cell editing (modifying cells in a living person to treat disease).
Strict oversight of research:
Thorough review processes by ethical committees and regulatory agencies to assess the scientific merit and potential risks of proposed CRISPR research.
Informed consent:
Clear and comprehensive informed consent procedures for individuals participating in CRISPR-based therapies.
However, some argue for cautious approach to regulation:
Innovation potential:
Overly strict regulations might hinder vital scientific research and therapeutic development using CRISPR.
International collaboration:
Establishing consistent global regulations is crucial to prevent "gene tourism" where individuals seek treatments i

It should be fine tuned more and reduce pricing making it more affordable allowing it for proper treatments for more than just the rich

Yes, but only in certain points, I feel like human genetic modification could be good for fixing birth defects, but could get out of hand very easily. I don't trust the government to make the right decisions about it, though.

This should be banned and not allowed unless for a medical reason like fighting cancer or something. Keep it away from plants and animals and anything else.

Depends on the use. Suppose it's for physical modifications for a fetus that isn't born yet, then no. If it's for life-threatening conditions, then yes.

Some regulation may be necessary to curb unethical use cases, but this doesn't mean we should stifle innovation and expand the avenue of this technology.