Band 9 model answer
Genetic engineering has progressed from speculative fiction into clinical reality, granting scientists the unprecedented power to rewrite the very blueprint of life itself. Although the ethical anxieties it raises are far from trivial, I firmly believe that, with rigorous oversight in place, its benefits substantially outweigh the attendant risks.
The practical advantages of this technology are extremely difficult to dismiss. Editing crop genomes has already produced varieties that resist drought, pests and disease, offering a genuine lifeline to regions perpetually threatened by food insecurity. In the field of medicine, gene therapies are beginning to cure previously intractable conditions such as inherited blindness, sickle-cell disease and certain aggressive cancers. Where these interventions demonstrably alleviate profound human suffering, the moral case for actively pursuing them strikes me as overwhelming.
That said, the ethical reservations of critics deserve serious and sober consideration. The prospect of editing human embryos for purely non-medical traits raises the troubling spectre of so-called 'designer babies' and could further entrench inequality, since only the affluent might ever afford genetic enhancement. Moreover, irreversible changes passed silently to future generations carry consequences that we cannot yet fully foresee, demanding humility rather than reckless ambition.
Weighing these competing factors, I maintain that the technology should be wholeheartedly embraced but tightly constrained. A sensible approach would permit therapeutic applications that relieve illness while strictly prohibiting frivolous enhancement and enforcing transparent regulation. Outlawing genetic engineering altogether would needlessly squander its capacity to feed populations and heal the sick, yet allowing it to proceed entirely unchecked would invite precisely the abuses critics rightly fear. On balance, therefore, the answer lies not in rejection but in disciplined, ethically grounded progress.
Examiner’s notes
- The response answers the 'to what extent' question directly, stating a measured position (benefits outweigh risks with oversight) and quantifying it throughout with hedged language.
- Paragraphs are logically sequenced and linked with cohesive signposts ('That said', 'Moreover', 'Weighing these competing factors') that mark concession and evaluation.
- Lexis is sophisticated and accurate: 'intractable conditions', 'entrench inequality', 'frivolous enhancement' and the idiomatic 'raises the spectre of' demonstrate flexibility.