Gene editing technology has been a controversial topic among scientists since it first appeared in public in 2015. Since then, we have faced scientific and ethical dilemmas due to the positive and negative outcomes the technology could produce. It is true that the science of gene editing technology is still in its infancy, however, I firmly believe that this technology should be further developed, like other sciences, to save more lives under international guidelines.


First off, gene editing technology has the potential of saving more human lives. A good example is designer babies, whose gene codes are modified at the embryo stage. Such alterations of gene sequences were in the realm of science fiction in the past, however, a Chinese scientist succeeded in eliminating an HIV gene from an embryo, which resulted in two girls being born without inheriting the HIV gene in 2018. That experiment suggests that some incurable diseases can be treated before a life comes into being.


Another reason gene editing should be promoted is that restrictions on scientific experiments could hinder further scientific developments. There are many technologies that were once regarded as hazardous to human beings such as nuclear fission. This technique has been used to generate electricity but has also caused catastrophic disasters. However, nuclear fusion, which scientists consider much safer than nuclear fission was discovered as a result of scientific advancements. The same is true for gene editing technology. Future advancements might lead to safer gene editing methods than the current methods.


Finally, gene editing should be legalized internationally, and only licensed scientists should be permitted to conduct further research. In many cases, medical technologies end up on the black market, such as organ transaction and illegal animal trading. Gene editing technology cannot only be profitable but also used for military purposes. Therefore, there is a potential danger that terrorists could acquire and misuse this technology. In case of a serious incident, research should be continued under the strict surveillance of internationally authorized institutions.


Although the outcome of gene editing technology remains unseen, the potential might be huge. If humans go in the right direction and further progress is made, countless human lives could be saved.
















この英作文は概ね文法的に正確ですが、いくつかの小さな誤りや不自然な表現があります。例えば、"organ transaction" は "organ transplantation" の方が適切な表現です。また、一部の文でのコンマの使い方が不適切で、文の流れを少し妨げています。


語彙の使用は非常に良いです。専門的な用語が適切に使われており、テーマに沿った表現が豊富に使用されています。例えば、「designer babies」や「gene editing」といった専門用語の使用は適切で理解を助けています。






遺伝子編集技術に関するこの英作文は、その潜在能力と問題点を適切に評価しながら、さらなる研究の推進を訴える内容となっており、大変読み応えがありました。文法的にはほとんど問題ありませんが、「organ transaction」のような表現はより一般的な「organ transplantation」に修正すると良いでしょう。内容に関しても、使用されている例をもう少し詳細に説明することで、より理解が深まり、説得力が増すと思います。全体的には、遺伝子編集の未来に対する明確なビジョンを提示しており、その潜在的な利益とリスクを考慮した上での国際的な規制と進展を訴える構成は非常に効果的です。




Task Achievement
The essay addresses the topic well, presenting a clear argument in favor of developing gene editing technology under international guidelines. It provides examples and reasons supporting the viewpoint, fulfilling the task requirements.


Coherence and Cohesion
The essay is logically structured with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a single main idea, which is expanded with examples and explanations. The use of linking words like "First off," "Another reason," and "Finally" helps in maintaining the flow and coherence.


Lexical Resource
The lexical resource is varied, with appropriate usage of terminology related to the topic, such as "gene editing technology," "designer babies," and "nuclear fusion." The writer demonstrates flexibility in language use, although there's some repetition of phrases like "gene editing technology" that could be varied more to demonstrate a wider range.


Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The essay showcases a range of grammatical structures, including complex sentence forms. There are a few minor errors ("organ transaction" should be "organ trading") and awkward phrasings ("restrictions on scientific experiments could hinder further scientific developments" could be more concisely phrased), but these do not impede understanding.


Overall, this essay would likely score well on the IELTS writing section, typically around a Band 7.5 to 8.0. It strongly addresses the prompt with well-supported arguments and clear, coherent language, though there is some room for improvement in lexical variety and minor grammatical corrections.

Copyright © 2019 英語塾GRIT All rights reserved.