Public Views of Gene Editing for Babies Depend on How It Would Be Used
Americans are more likely to anticipate negative than positive effects from widespread use of gene-editing technology
Americans are more likely to anticipate negative than positive effects from widespread use of gene-editing technology
The U.S. has more foreign students enrolled in its colleges and universities than any other country in the world. Explore data about foreign students in the U.S. higher education system.
Still, white evangelical Protestants and religious "nones" are somewhat less likely than members of other religious groups to support a vaccine requirement.
While most Americans support requiring childhood vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella, parents of young children rate the risks of the vaccine higher and the benefits lower.
Human enhancement may be just around the corner. How do Americans view these emerging technologies that may one day enhance our human capabilities?
Christian Brugger, a professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, believes that people are right to be concerned about the social impact of human enhancement. Anders Sandberg, a research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, thinks that, on balance, human enhancement will improve and enrich our lives.
Americans are more worried than enthusiastic about using gene editing, brain chip implants and synthetic blood to change human capabilities
Focus group participants discuss biomedical developments that could boost the performance of people’s bodies and brains
The scientific and ethical dimensions of striving for perfection
Fifty years ago this month, Time magazine published one of its most famous and controversial covers. Splashed in bold red print across a black background was a short, simple and yet intensely provocative question: “Is God Dead?” Without providing a definitive answer, the authors of the piece, dated April 8, 1966, seemed to imply that, […]