Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscienceStarted 7mos agoActive 2wks ago

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

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.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Province/Territory:

40 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

Yes

 @9YLQXQJfrom Newfoundland  disagreed…2mos2MO

We don't have sufficient understanding to be playing with hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7mos7MO

No

 @9T878LKfrom Ontario  agreed…4mos4MO

Don't do it. God made us the way we are in His image and to change that would be basically saying the the Lord of the universe didn't do a good enough job.

 @B23K9GGfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

It depends on the circumstances and their should people ensuring everyone is making good decisions and not starting new problems

 @B23DHJVanswered…2wks2W

Yes But But Only If The Results From The Genetic Engineering Research Are For Everyone To Equally Access Regardless Of Income Level

 @9ZRT2HKfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

yes but only to treat and prevent diseases but not to genetically engineer people for any other reason

 @9WC2362from British Columbia  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, as long as the advancements are thoroughly tested and verified to be free of long term negative side effects

 @9WBDHC5Greenfrom British Columbia  answered…2mos2MO

well any government cannot be trusted at any level about medical research since we all know who finances all this...

 @9W8GJCBfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

To the highest degree, this is an extremely important issue with keeping people alive and preventing possible biological warfare.

 @9W46KMMGreenfrom British Columbia  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, make it as long as one’s life can ever last. A democracy to quality humans leads to a greater future of humanity in Canada’s society.

 @9VVGC59from British Columbia  answered…2mos2MO

No, we should not open the pandora's box to modifying DNA which can have harmful social implications in the future

 @9VPGGY4New Democraticfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

We should ask more ethical questions before going full steak ahead. Ask more philosophical and ethical questions

 @9VJZTNPConservativefrom Alberta  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, but only if they companies provide yearly breakdowns of where the funds are going. After 5 years if they don't provide any (proven) improvements, funding stops.

 @9VGP5FZLiberalfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, but how will this affect the economy? And how will the government respond to something like this?

 @9V2YV4Bfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

No, I don’t want the government funding things, but genetic engineering is cool and fun. Plus, who knows? Maybe we get a superhero out of it!

 @9TV8XFSfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, we should fund more research. But the government should watch over the research. To ensure it is happening ethically

 @9TT85JLfrom Saskatchewan  answered…3mos3MO

This question is vague. Genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment is different in terms of whether it’s done on humans, crops or food.

 @9TR533Janswered…3mos3MO

Yes, but it should be strictly reserved to medicinal use and exclude all meddling in reproduction and human cloning

 @9TMMVLNNew Democraticfrom Alberta  answered…3mos3MO

I would say yes to some extent as long as it's for a preventional reason like for instance preventing a deadly disease that affects the whole society not on just a handful on people..

 @9T9YZJHfrom British Columbia  answered…4mos4MO

No, but in the future, if diseases like monkey pox was to reach a covid 19 level of concern, then I would want that a top priority.

 @9T8X5WBfrom British Columbia  answered…4mos4MO

Only for specific diseases such as alzheimers, dementia, etc. i would not support funding research into getting rid of people with autism or down syndrome.

 @9QNDV5PRhinocerosfrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

They have to be VERY VERY VERY careful when they do it but it can save lives and somebody is going to do it eventually so yes

 @9PLH7DZPeople’sfrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but only if The research organization takes the best interests of the country into account And is unbiased

 @9YJQM5LNew Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

as long as they can be held accountable with fail safes put into place as it is a slippery slope into eugenics territory

 @9YJ9C4Yfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

It’s a thin line. Lots of rules would have to be set in place for using this kind of thing for me to feel comfortable about the idea.

 @9WW3GTHfrom Alberta  answered…2mos2MO

It depends on what is being considered a disease. Considering homosexuality was classified as a disease not too long ago, it seems like too much of a blanket term to be in usage for genetic prevention.

 @9RZPX67from Alberta  answered…5mos5MO

no, that is nothing but neo eugenics, a neo nazi school of thought, which our government and forefathers disagree with/ died protecting against

 @9RC2QHKNew Democraticfrom Nova Scotia  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, Excepting that our government correctly uses peer reviewed research that identifies diseases and the likes.

 @9P965MFConservativefrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

I believe it is important, however, there are other pressing matters that I think the government should invest more money in.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

What fears come to mind when you think about modifying the DNA of living organisms, and are those fears valid?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Is there a trait or characteristic you would want to change about yourself if genetic modification were available?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How might society change if everyone could eliminate health risks or enhance abilities using genetic engineering?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Would you want to know if your DNA had been engineered, or do you think the results matter more than the process?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Do you think altering genes to eliminate diseases crosses an ethical line, or is it just a natural progression of science?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How would you feel if genetic engineering could allow you to choose certain traits in your future children?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Is it more dangerous for us to not explore the benefits of genetic engineering, or to take the risk of using it without fully understanding the consequences?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Would you support genetic engineering if it were only used for medical purposes, or does that still raise concerns for you?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

How do you think genetically modified humans would be treated in society—is it more likely to bring equality or division?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…3mos3MO

Should all people have equal access to genetic engineering, or is it okay if only those who can afford it use it?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree