--- title: "Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Support Human Gene Editing to Cure Disease" description: "The majority of U.S. adults would support human gene editing to protect babies against disease, according to a new poll — but not for aesthetic reasons." date: "2018-12-29" modified: "2018-12-29" authors: - name: "Jon Christian" job_title: "Executive Editor" link: "https://futurism.com/authors/jonc" url: "https://futurism.com/the-byte/poll-two-thirds-americans-support-human-gene-editing" categories: - "Gene Editing" - "Genetics" - "Health & Medicine" tags: - "CRISPR" - "designer babies" - "gene-editing" - "the digest" --- # Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Support Human Gene Editing to Cure Disease ![The majority of U.S. adults would support gene editing embryos to protect babies against disease, according to a new poll.]() *\Image: Adobe Stock/Victor Tangermann\* ## Human Gene Editing The majority of U.S. adults support human gene editing to protect babies against disease, according to a new poll. But they wouldn't support gene edits that make babies smarter or taller, according to the [new research]() by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which polled about a thousand U.S. adults this month to learn about public attitudes toward genetic engineering. ## Deep Divides The *AP* research found that 71 percent of respondents support gene editing to protect a baby from an inherited condition, and 67 percent support reducing the risk of diseases like cancer. But just 12 percent would be okay with tampering with intelligence or athletic ability, and only 10 percent would consider altering physical characteristics like eye color or height. ## CRISPR Drawer Questions about using technologies like CRISPR to gene edit human embryos gained immediacy last month, when Chinese scientists [claimed to have edited the genes]() of two babies in order to protect them against HIV — a move that prompted an international outcry, but also questions about when the technology will be ready for human testing. "People appear to realize there’s a major question of how we should oversee and monitor use of this technology if and when it becomes available," Columbia University bioethicist Robert Klitzman [told the *AP*]() of the new research. "What is safe enough? And who will determine that? The government? Or clinicians who say, ‘Look, we did it in Country X a few times and it seems to be effective. **READ MORE:** [Poll: Edit baby genes for health, not smarts]() \[*Associated Press*\] ***More on human gene editing: [Chinese Scientists Claim to Have Gene-Edited Human Babies For the First Time]()*** ## Author I'm responsible for editing, assigning, and scouting at Futurism, as well as occasionally writing for the site. That work involves keeping an eye on a wide range of narratives and issues, but over the past few years I've become increasingly interested in how AI is shaping the future of media, the web, and information itself. My day-to-day often involves collaborating on reporting and commentary projects bylined by my colleagues, but I try to find time to do my own reporting as well; stories I've broken for Futurism have been cited by publications including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Wired, Ars Technica, New York Magazine, the Columbia Journalism Review, Bloomberg, and more. I grew up in Southern Vermont and attended Vanderbilt University. Prior to Futurism, I contributed to outlets including the Boston Globe, Vice, Wired, Slate, the Atlantic, the Outline, Ars Technica and more, and did stints in farming and food service. I currently live in Brooklyn, New York, and in my free time I enjoy pinball, word games, cycling, running, and music production. ### Author social links [Bluesky]()