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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@B74G2BR 3wks3W
I understand and agree with both sides of this argument. The idea that it could lead to breakthroughs in curing genetic disorders is incredible. But the ethicality of how they go about it can raise suspicion, similar to MKUltra.
@tavern_mama 2mos2MO
Yes, but only with strict long-term safety testing. Genetic editing could be life-changing for people with serious diseases, but we don’t fully understand the long-term effects. Funding should come with strong ethical review and transparency
I think we can, but we have to be careful how we use this to make sure it's safe for those involved.
@9YFYWXW11mos11MO
I think there should be some research done, but I don’t think it needs to be something that is funded heavily
@9YCMTG2Independent11mos11MO
tThe issue lies in the funding and research that, according to some, creates diseases which harm humans. They then attempt to develop a vaccine after millions have already perished.
@9XYGT4311mos11MO
No, foods need to chemical free, we have ingredients that are banned in other countries, make real healthy food affordable to all people
@9XW33JF11mos11MO
Yes, but the research must be held up to the highest possible ethical standards and have total transparency
@9XTWN9P11mos11MO
It depends because it could be used for good if that is all that would be done but i dont think the goverment would just be doing that
Genetic engineering is dangerous territory and if done improperly, could have terrible negative side affects. we should instead focus on making sure its safe by doing it on other organisms so that way we can be sure its safe, but this would take many many years
@9TQXT8R1yr1Y
I think anything done with caution is fine, but I don’t think our country has the best track record of this type of research in the past. I also don’t believe they tell us the whole truth about it. And then I also felt the outcomes are more “preventative treatments” constantly being forced on us.
@9TKDB5L1yr1Y
Recent advances have made genetic therapies much safer. Better safety has resulted in the FDA approving some gene transfer
@9TK7M941yr1Y
No, again the potential for the abuse of this is great, but also, we have enough of an overpopulation issue.
@9TC6MH91yr1Y
We should focus on making quality nutrition affordable and banning chemicals in our food that cause many diseases
@9SBB6XT1yr1Y
No, government funding, if any, should be from the states and local governments and not the federal government
@9X34ZDX11mos11MO
It depends on how much they do with genetic engineering; if it's only used for medicinal purposes, then sure, but only to the extent in which it doesn't alter one's genome so much that it becomes practically unrecognizable.
@9WBDN6F12mos12MO
No, that sounds like eugenics. The government should maybe provide funding for prevention and treatment of bacterial, viral, or prionic infections.
@9VTRGMQIndependent12mos12MO
Yes, but if threat of weaponization happens, terminate the project and the person attempting to use it for other things
@9SNP77G1yr1Y
I don't think they should directly fund it, but I am okay with them incentivizing biotechs to do it, as longs as it doesn't involve or isn't predicated on the harming of prenatal human beings
@9RTHFLC 1yr1Y
Ye but only to treat agreed upon diseases (e.g. cancer, Lupus, anemia, etc.) and only with the consent of the individual not a proxy.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
