Should the government fund research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment?

Yes and the government should be encouraging research into this with financial forgiveness, programs, etc.

Yes if the government is fully transparent on their progress and is not used for genetic engineering without consent. Should also not be used on humans until we know the full outcomes tested in a lab against lab grown cells.

I think if its really needed then, yes It should be used not to take advantage of a species or organsism to make it more desireable

The government should support government-funded research into somatic gene editing for disease prevention and treatment, as it provides crucial foundational knowledge and enables industry innovation for health improvements. However, funding for germline gene editing research in humans is prohibited by federal law due to ethical concerns about unknown long-term effects, consent from unborn individuals, and the potential for irreversible changes to the human gene pool. Additionally, potential risks include the exacerbation of health inequalities due to unequal access, the creation of new geneti…  Read morec disparities for underrepresented populations, and complex ethical issues related to human nature and eugenics, requiring careful public consultation and oversight.
Arguments for Government Funding
Foundational Knowledge:
The government's role in funding basic biological research establishes the fundamental understanding of cellular processes and molecular mechanisms, revealing "targets" for new therapies and technologies.
Enabling Innovation:
This government-funded knowledge discovery enables private industry to innovate and develop diagnostics and treatments, leading to improved health outcomes and saved lives.
Reducing Health Disparities:
Targeted funding for minority-focused genetic research and gene-environment interactions can help reduce health disparities rather than widen them.
Ethical Concerns and Risks
Germline Editing Restrictions:
Current U.S. federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for research on germline gene therapy in humans.
Unforeseen Consequences:
Germline alterations could have unknown long-term effects on fetal development and future generations.
Consent Issues:
Because individuals affected by germline gene therapy are not yet born, they cannot provide consent for the treatment.
Health Inequalities:
Access to potentially expensive gene therapies could increase health disparities, creating an unequal society where only the wealthy can afford them.
Exacerbating Disparities

If the genetic testing relates to diseases that will benefit many and if test is done on a wide range of people.

Yes but with conditions/restrictions/frequent monitoring and without compromising affordable healthcare

In the future yes, but right now it should not be a main priority for humanity unless major breakthroughs are achieved

Yes, government funding for research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment is generally considered beneficial, offering the potential to revolutionize healthcare and address currently intractable diseases, but requires careful ethical consideration and regulation.
Here's a more detailed look at the arguments for and against government funding in this area:
Arguments for Government Funding:
Potential for Transformative Treatments:
Genetic engineering, particularly gene editing technologies like CRISPR, holds immense promise for treating and even curing diseases…  Read more caused by single gene mutations, like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
Addressing Unmet Needs:
Many diseases, particularly rare or genetic diseases, lack effective treatments, and genetic engineering offers a potential path to developing new therapies.
Public Health Benefits:
Research into genetic engineering can lead to advancements in disease prevention and early detection, benefiting the entire population.
Economic Benefits:
Developing new treatments and technologies can create jobs and stimulate economic growth in the biotechnology sector.
Promoting Scientific Innovation:
Government funding can support research institutions and foster collaboration between researchers, leading to breakthroughs in the field.
Arguments Against Government Funding:
Ethical Concerns:
Genetic engineering raises complex ethical questions, particularly regarding germline editing (modifying genes that can be passed down to future generations) and the potential for misuse or unintended consequences.
Access and Equity:
New treatments may be expensive and inaccessible to many, potentially exacerbating health disparities.
Safety Concerns:
Genetic therapies are relatively new, and long-term safety and efficacy are still being studied.
Regulation and Oversight:
The development and use of genetic engineering technologies require careful regulation to ensure safety and prevent misuse.
Funding Priorities:
Limited government

No there is a lot of fraud within the healthcare industry and private companies would have an incentive to do better

Fix our FDA food regulations about what foods should be passed as safe to eat. Take care of health issues within our fast food chains and grocery stores first before we can even address disease prevention.

As long as there is no human testing towards the cause, if there is it can cause a mutation in the person's genetics which can affect them temporarily, and possibly the company in charge could be sued for this and cause a lost for all the research and founding for the project.

they should give people actual medicine and diets to help reverse their disease instead of using them for money

More research should be conducted on this because I can see the importance of being able to cure genetic disorders, but what about safety of the individual

I would say yes, because everyone deserves a chance to heal and be healthy. But I would say no because when they find the cure and they will because they have the resources, they will only provide cure to the rich. That’s not equality.

No, the government should instead ban ultra processed foods that are the root cause of most chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc. This would in turn prevent the majority of diseases.

Maybe for treatment and disease prevention if it does not alter genetic material before and after conception.

Yes, but said research should be closely monitored by the government and only tested when absolutely sure it is risk- free.

Depends on how far they go if they do figure this out. What else would they want to continue to mutate. Etc.

Yes, except for conditions such as autism, intersexuality, and dwarfism as they are not harmful or life-threatening.

No, I dont trust that extenisve genetic engineering research would not inspire a new wave of eugenics practices

Yes, under a controlled manner that stays only allowed with supervision of somebody just in case somebody had a malicious idea or try to make an army.

Yes, but it should be heavily restricted to not allow the creation of new diseases or potential diseases to find cures only be used to find cures for current diseases.

I fall in the middle when it comes to this issue, just because from what history has shown us genetic engineering is a slippery slope when it comes to race superiority and increasing discrimination. However, if used in order to prevent diseases it would be in a perfect world such a useful tool in increasing the quality of life in humans.

they should research mechanical engineering for the biology of humanity because the flesh is weak and the machine is strong

Yes, with consent from the person getting treatment, and the person providing treatment must not do anything the person getting treatment didn't ask for.

Yes, with a strict set of diseases that are allowed to be modified - only for diseases that severely impact a child’s quality of life.

No, it is never a good idea to alter human genes even if it"s meant to save lives. Evolution will do that for us.

yes as they're the ones responsible and are putting it on others to deal with and thats not fair as it can harm their health

I think there’s too much emphasis on federal power in this quiz. Let’s try leaving some things up to the states. This topic after all deals with the healthy and safety of its own citizens, which falls under the category of what a state power should be.

I believe that this has the potential to be a very slippery slope, even if it is just for disease prevention and treatment. I do believe that we should research more on the long-term effects, but also research the ethics of such a field.

It also depends because it's up to the person who's going to do it if their up for it or want to participate for this.

No, the cures to many diseases likely will never be brought to light as they'll detract from the profits of the medical industry. These large pharmaceutical companies will hide the drugs and the funding will have gone to waste.

I think that genetic engineering could be greatly beneficial for disease prevention and treatment. The thing is, genetic engineering is a difficult field in terms of morals and the topic in general since genetic modification could be harmful as well.

I don't see why not, but people are to know the process whether or not their treatment whatever it may be is gmo or not

genetic engineering should only be used for plants, informed, consenting adults, or to cure life threatening diseases in children (with parent consent)

Yes, but only for deadly life threatening diseases, or things that would destroy quality of life, not the common cold.

The government should have some funding into it, but most of the time they will fund what they want to be studied maybe in a positive way or not.

True research could be done through State College Institutions funded by the government, and residual funds could be spent on reducing student loan debt.

Maybe, this should involve extensive safe testing, along with an opt in type system, not being mandated once in practice.

Yes, because it can change the way we produce food, improve crop yield, and prevent catastrophic losses from droughts, floods,...

Yes, and ... Hoo booy. Where do you draw the line between a preventable disease, and "eugenics" / "we define what is human"?

Yes, but ensure that genetic modifications are fail-safe and have undergone rigorous testing before public release.

Yes, but only if sufficient laws are going to be put in place for malpractice and unnecessary tampering of genetic material

As long as its something we are struggling with, like lots of womens health issues need to be more researched.

Yes, as long as it doesn't cross any ethical boundaries and is not used to modify the genetics of someone

Yes, this can help multiple diseases rather than funding for separate organizations, making a difference in multiple categories.

I believe that we should not genetically modify humans to prevent diseases. If you have the ability to genetically modify genes, you should have the ability to form a vaccine that stops all form of diseases.

Yes, but the research should be managed heavily as to make sure that it doesn't cross any ethical lines.

Only if it is truly monitored where the government doesn’t have to much control and take advantage of the work they are doing.

It's kinda whatever, I believe we can be on a line to true breakthroughs without genetic engineering.

It could be extremely helpful with genetic breakthroughs, but it could easily turn into an ethical nightmare if only a few doctors get too curious.

Question is too broad. We already do genetic research for medical advancements so it's unclear what this is specifically asking. Research for medical treatments is a good thing but research into genetics can also dip into eugenics so it's an area that requires a more nuanced line of questions.

Yes as long as there are heavy regulations and any experiments are thoroughly completed to assess all possible risks and consequences

Genetic engineering for disease treatment would be beneficial but the idea of disease prevention might set up a potential eugenics situation.

Heavy restrictions regarding what can be experimented on need to be taken. No fetal DNA use or unethical conditions for animals.

This is grounds for a bigger problem to occur where people genetically alter children. It could be good for their safety but it can cause racism to be more prevelant

Yes, but ensure that research adheres to strict bioethics and safety with a proven “kill switch” for any gene editing that is intended for humans

Yes, but only not for neurodiversities. Only for diseases that strictly harm the life of an individual.

Yes, but this should not be an excuse for the government to build a biometric database against its citizens.

Yes, as long as anyone involved in the medical testing process give informed consent and aren’t pressured into research studies because of poverty.

um I feel like the government scams us with there medicines for diseases to make people addicts and make more money off of that, but it is also benifical so there its 50/50.

Yes, but it should be researched for a very long time and be tested on volunteers before being publicly used.

Yes, but with very strict regulations and only used with informed consent in life-threatening scenarios

Yes, because they could figure out ways to treat any infects instead of just waiting to see what cause the disease.it could also prevent the disease from spreading

The government should have never been involved in funding scientific research. Instead, let the universities and NGOs fund research to maximize freedom in scientific research

Yes, but ban genetic research and prenatal testing involving "disabilities" like down syndrome, autism, and ADHD.

Yes, I think genetic engineering is the future for healthcare and should be studied and researched more

Yes, but there should be hefty regulations on it since the topic of genetic modifications can be a slippery slope to eugenics

Yes but There should be independent parties checking on that they are only working for disease prevention and treatment and not for anything else

The government should as long as the commercialization of such treatment is used for major diseases and banned from being used for minor non-lethal ones

Yes on the research, but before it’s made available to the public there should be a system in place to ensure clear& prominent marking on anything modified, and unmodified options should be equally accessible at all times.

Yes, as long as it is limited to disease prevention and treatment but not for modifying anything else

Yes, but only through using animals as test subjects until we are absolutely certain our treatments can work on them without any fatalities

The government may do this but also allow private interests to develop such technologies as well. There must not exist a state monopoly on such research.

This is a double edged sword where it can create a cure for hard to kill diseases but we can also create accidental bio-weapons

I dunno about genetic engineering... I mean yeah we can alternate the DNA and Genes but, what if it goes wrong? And also I prefer to keep my DNA intact rather than alternate how my body was meant to be. I would only say yes if I was under different regulations such as dealing with a disease, failure in body, or some other reason.