Academic Writing Sample Answers Practice 11 Test 03

Heritable gene editing could remove a disease-causing mutation before birth, but the change would also be inherited by people who had no part in the decision. I believe its medical promise can justify eventual use only in exceptional cases where the condition is grave, the cause is clear and no safer option exists. Enhancement and routine clinical use should remain prohibited.

The case in favour is strongest for severe disorders caused by a single gene. Instead of repeatedly treating symptoms, doctors might correct the mutation and allow a child to live without a condition that would otherwise cause profound disability or early death. The benefit could extend to that person’s descendants, ending a pattern of illness within a family. For parents who cannot produce an unaffected embryo through conventional screening, editing may provide the only realistic route to a genetically related child without transmitting the disease.

However, a heritable intervention has a different risk profile from treatment given to a consenting patient. An unintended change may not become apparent until later development, and interactions between genes and the environment are complex. If an error enters reproductive cells, it could pass through several generations before its consequences are understood. Future individuals cannot consent to this exposure, and reversing a dispersed genetic alteration would be far harder than withdrawing an unsafe medicine.

The social dangers are serious. Once editing is accepted for disease prevention, commercial pressure may expand its use towards height, appearance or supposed cognitive advantage, even where the genetics are uncertain. Access would initially be expensive, allowing wealthy families to purchase advantages that accumulate across generations. Decisions about which traits require correction could also stigmatise people living with disabilities and revive coercive ideas about what kinds of humans are desirable.

A defensible regulatory boundary must therefore be based on necessity, not parental preference. Non-heritable therapies and embryo screening should be used whenever they offer a safer solution. Germline editing should be considered only for a serious, well-defined disorder, following extensive evidence, independent ethical review and public scrutiny. International standards are also needed to prevent clinics from relocating to poorly regulated jurisdictions. Approved cases would require secure records and long-term voluntary monitoring, with public support to avoid access being determined solely by wealth.

In conclusion, permanent genetic change is not inherently unacceptable, but neither is medical benefit a blank cheque. Highly limited disease prevention may be ethical when the alternative is unavoidable suffering, whereas enhancement or inadequately tested use would impose risks on future people for objectives they never chose.

Gene editing could prevent some inherited diseases before birth and stop the responsible mutation from reaching later generations. Supporters see a major medical advance, whereas opponents emphasise that any mistake or social harm could also become permanent. In my view, the technology should not yet be used widely, although controlled treatment of serious genetic conditions may become acceptable when safety is well established.

The medical argument is powerful. Some inherited disorders cause severe pain, loss of physical or mental ability, and a greatly shortened life. If scientists could correct the gene responsible, a child might avoid the disease rather than depend on treatment throughout life. Since the corrected gene could be inherited, the same intervention might also protect future descendants and spare families repeated suffering. In rare situations where every suitable embryo carries a harmful mutation, gene editing might offer possibilities that embryo screening cannot.

Nevertheless, the effects of genes are not always simple. Editing one part of DNA could produce an unintended change elsewhere or influence development in a way that appears only many years later. The parents may understand and accept this uncertainty, but their children and grandchildren cannot consent. A mistake in an ordinary treatment affects one patient; a mistake in heritable editing could spread through a family line and be extremely difficult to correct.

There are also social and ethical concerns. The boundary between preventing disease and improving a healthy person may gradually weaken. Wealthy parents could demand changes intended to increase physical ability, appearance or intelligence, even if the results were uncertain. If only rich families could afford these services, existing inequality might become partly inherited through technology. In addition, describing certain characteristics as genetic defects could make people who live with those conditions feel less valued.

These risks justify strict limits rather than either unrestricted use or a permanent ban. Governments should first support research that does not lead directly to edited births and continue developing non-heritable treatments. Future clinical use should be restricted to serious, clearly understood diseases when safer options are unavailable. Independent experts should review each application, clinics should publish outcomes, and enhancement procedures should be forbidden. International cooperation would be necessary because weak regulation in one country could undermine safeguards elsewhere.

Overall, preventing devastating inherited illness is a legitimate goal, and heritable editing may eventually help achieve it. However, because future generations bear both the benefits and the dangers, limited medical use should begin only after strong evidence and enforceable ethical protections are in place.

Gene-editing technology may allow doctors to prevent a serious inherited disease before a child is born. The change could then protect later generations. However, it could also pass unexpected problems to people who never agreed to the procedure. I believe this technology may be justified for preventing severe diseases, but it should be used only when it is proven safe, no better option exists and strict rules are followed.

Supporters focus on the suffering that could be prevented. Some genetic conditions cause lifelong disability, serious pain or early death, and current medicine may only control their symptoms. Correcting the harmful gene could allow a child to live without the disease. Unlike a normal treatment, the benefit might also be inherited, so the condition could disappear from that family in future generations. This would reduce pressure on parents and carers.

Parents already make important medical decisions for children who cannot give consent. Supporters argue that gene editing could be similar when strong evidence shows that it will prevent a dangerous condition. A complete ban might therefore deny some families their only opportunity to have an unaffected biological child.

Opponents point out that genetic changes may have uncertain long-term effects. A change intended to remove one disease could accidentally affect another part of development. Because the alteration is inherited, a mistake may be passed to children and grandchildren. It would be difficult to remove once it had entered a family line. Future generations would have to live with a risk that they did not choose.

The technology may also increase inequality. At first, it would probably be expensive and available mainly to wealthy families. If its use expanded from disease prevention to improving height, strength or intelligence, richer groups could gain further advantages. There would also be disagreement about which conditions should be removed. Treating every difference as a defect could lead to discrimination against people with disabilities.

For these reasons, non-heritable treatments and embryo screening should be preferred when they can prevent the disease safely. Heritable editing should be limited to serious conditions with a clear genetic cause and should require independent medical and ethical approval. Procedures designed only to enhance healthy children should not be allowed, and countries should cooperate on common safety rules.

In conclusion, the possibility of preventing severe inherited diseases should not be rejected. Even so, permanent changes affecting future people require much stronger evidence and control than ordinary treatment. Carefully limited medical use is more reasonable than either unrestricted access or a total ban.