Ruth Dyson

Very strongly agree

Yes

The New Zealand Labour Party has historically supported strong government regulation in areas involving new technologies, health, and bioethics. For example, Labour governments have maintained strict controls on genetic modification (GMOs) in agriculture and have supported the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, which regulates genetic technologies. Labour's approach to biotechnology emphasizes public safety, ethical considerations, and robust oversight, making it highly likely they would strongly agree with regulating CRISPR for human genetic modifications. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No

The Labour Party would strongly disagree with a lack of regulation for CRISPR technology in human genetic modification. Their policy history shows a preference for precautionary principles and public consultation in biotechnology. Labour has consistently advocated for regulatory frameworks to manage risks associated with new scientific developments, as seen in their stance on GMOs and their support for the Environmental Protection Authority's role in oversight. Therefore, they would be strongly opposed to a 'no regulation' approach. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.