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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of CRISPR Technology
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of CRISPR Technology
@B39TMLV3wks3W
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.
@B2GW5B4 2mos2MO
Yes, and we shouldn’t be genetically engineering anything at all. It’s never a good idea to play God with these things
@B289TV72mos2MO
Individuals with a degree in biomedical sciences specifically a PhD would be granted permission to regulate and educate the public on CRISPR with MD or BS degree holders working in conjunction with doctorate level scientists to ensure that the technology is being used ethically. Government officials that have no educational background in the area of biomedical sciences and the specific area of genetics related to CRISPR technology should not be regulating the use of this technology. Government officials lack understanding of genetics and it is a huge disservice to our country to give individuals the power to regulate such topics without a thorough education.
@9TG8LMC6mos6MO
Only officials that can prove they have the education to properly understand what the technology does and can do.
@Isaac-BarretoDemocrat 6mos6MO
yes, there should be partial regulation to establish safety standards and way to make sure it doesn't get used for nefarious purposes.
@9SKQQD7Republican7mos7MO
I'm fine with CRISPR to a certain extent cause if it's causing too much problems then I might be opposed to it.
@9SDXF937mos7MO
Decision for scientific ethics should be made by those within the scientific and academic knowledge of the systom
@9SBSML27mos7MO
Yes, but only after further research. The technology isn't developed enough for the general industry adoption of it so should be limited to those who choose it as a medical option.
@9S74BW67mos7MO
No, they should create an independant panel of scientists who are under supervision and make all aspects public record
No, genetically altering humans should be outlawed, neither the government nor any company should be allowed to alter human genes.
@9JZXLDD 8mos8MO
Harmful usage of it should be regulated like all emerging technologies but generic modification should be embraced when it done ‘cooking’.
@9R7S7KQ8mos8MO
It should be used for the curing of genetic diseases but the technology should never be used for transhumanist purposes.
@9MKS5G3Republican10mos10MO
Every business should be regulated, however to a limited extent
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
