Quick questions on Genetic engineering and biotechnology explained: H1 General Paper

The single most useful distinction in this theme is between therapy (restoring normal function, curing disease) and enhancement (improving traits beyond the normal). Most ethical frameworks accept therapy more readily than enhancement, because therapy relieves suffering while enhancement raises questions of fairness, consent and what we value in being human. Drawing answers around this line lets you support beneficial uses while opposing troubling ones, the essence of a balanced judgement.

Questions in this theme often invoke the idea that we should not "play God" or interfere with nature. Handle it fairly: it expresses a genuine caution about hubris, humility and irreversibility, which deserves respect. But it proves too much if taken literally, since medicine, agriculture and vaccination already "interfere with nature" to great benefit. The mature position treats it not as a veto but as a reason for caution and limits, especially where consequences are irreversible.

"Scientists can edit genes" evidences nothing. Use specific cases such as gene therapy for inherited disease or a food-security strategy.

Explain the difference between gene therapy and genetic enhancement. [2 marks]

Give one reason heritable genetic edits raise a consent problem. [2 marks]

Explain why the "playing God" objection is not a complete answer to genetic engineering. [3 marks]