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 the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Province/Territory:
@B2SXCQR2mos2MO
It's too diverse of a question to be filtered into a yes or no. Science has the change to have a negative impact
@9TMMVLNNew Democratic7mos7MO
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..
@9RZPX678mos8MO
no, that is nothing but neo eugenics, a neo nazi school of thought, which our government and forefathers disagree with/ died protecting against
@9WW3GTH6mos6MO
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.
@9VJZTNPConservative6mos6MO
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.
@B4NWTNK4 days4D
It should but within reason, research does need to go into it however it should not be on the government's high proirity list.
@B4JWSTG1wk1W
Yes and No, if public funds are used then they should also get dividends or price relief on these things.
@B4HSGNQ2wks2W
Yes, but it can only be for the production of cures and no research should be made into how to alter genes and DNA
@B4BF3T33wks3W
Yes and the government should reap the profits from its investment as do all companies and turn those profits to the public purse for the public good. It is time that governments stop supporting private industry raping all the financial benefits will the public assumes all the liabilities for such ve turns.
@B3SL4CMConservative1mo1MO
Yes, without full payment. You show that you're making significant advances with the proof to back it up or payments end.
@B2Y34W92mos2MO
yes, but there should be a requirement to have a way to reverse or neutralize any genetic engineering in case there are harmful unexpected outcomes
@B2Y2G572mos2MO
Yes, but there should be a requirement for some kind of 'reversal' or 'neutralization' for the treatment in case there are unexpected results
@B2V8SXT2mos2MO
Maybe a little bit for more serious diseases, but everything must be done ethically, so it might be better if it was done privately. Still ethically.
@B2HS45H3mos3MO
Yes, but not used to alter babies under any circumstance. Only adults should be allowed access to genetic alteration
@B2C3XPJ3mos3MO
I beleive we should look into prevention of diesese and treatments involved in that but not so much genetic engineering.
@B4QS7P42 days2D
They should fix the corrupted healthcare system that brought these diseases. almost every disease now adays is treatable with natural medicines
@B4QWGPT2 days2D
It should fund research through university researchers, and the government should hold the patent for treatments that come out of the research.
@B3FWKNX2mos2MO
Yes but there have to be strict regulations to ensure that genetic engineering is ethical and won't be used to intentionally harm groups of people or generations
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
