Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsScience2yrs ago

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

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.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of CRISPR Technology

@DuckEli
#1 Expert Pundit
@7ZJCHWN
#2 Expert Pundit

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of CRISPR Technology

@foshy
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 50.4k America voters.

66%
Yes
34%
No
61%
Yes
33%
No
3%
Yes, we should only use it to prevent diseases and disorders instead of altering physical appearances
1%
No, people should be able to do whatever they want as long as its not harming anyone else
1%
Yes, we can always relax regulations later but can’t undo tragic outcomes from reckless use of new technologies
0%
No, and the government should not interfere with the private sector

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 50.4k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 50.4k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9MMD6HL from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only in terms of preventing disease, disorders, and significant health issues. This should not be applied to physical appearance.

 @9R39MRM from Missouri  answered…2yrs2Y

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

 @78MJYZM  from Indiana  answered…2yrs2Y

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

 @9RBTJRM from Illinois  answered…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9R5MQF6 from Alabama  answered…2yrs2Y

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.

 @B87XQXZ from California  answered…7mos7MO

It should only be used on genes that carry diseases that are basically a death sentence and makes you unable to be independent for the rest of your life.

 @B6DTX5P from California  answered…11mos11MO

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

 @9R4Z6QG from Connecticut  answered…2yrs2Y

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.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies

About This Data

Based on 50.4k responses to this question.

These results come from iSideWith's ongoing political issues survey. We collect over a million responses per day, filter out duplicate and multiple submissions, and break the results down by political party, ideology, age, state, and census demographics (income, race, education, household).

iSideWith is non-partisan — we don't advocate for any party, candidate, or position. We report what the public tells us.

Read Our Full Methodology →

Cite Or Embed This Poll

Writing about this issue? Use the live data and link back to the full results.

Cite This Poll

iSideWith. (2026). “Should the government regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications?” — Public Opinion Poll Results. Retrieved June 17, 2026, from https://www.isidewith.com/poll/5139240915

Embed The Live Result

Preview