【大学受験対策】英語長文問題56（遺伝子）321語＋和訳・解答解説

In recent decades, advances in genetic engineering have opened new frontiers in science and medicine. From curing inherited diseases to enhancing crop resistance, gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 are changing what is biologically possible. However, these developments also raise complex ethical questions about how far we should go in modifying life.

One of the most promising aspects of genetic engineering is the potential to treat or even eliminate genetic disorders. Scientists can now alter specific DNA sequences to correct mutations that cause conditions like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. This offers hope to millions of patients and their families. Yet, even therapeutic applications raise questions about long-term effects, unintended consequences, and equitable access to treatment.

The controversy becomes even more intense when gene editing is used for enhancement rather than therapy. Some scientists and parents have expressed interest in using genetic technology to improve physical traits, intelligence, or athletic ability in future children. Critics argue that this could lead to a society divided by genetic privilege, where only the wealthy can afford “designer babies.” This raises concerns about fairness, social pressure, and the definition of what it means to be human.

Moreover, editing the genes of embryos or germline cells—changes that are passed down to future generations—poses additional moral dilemmas. These changes are irreversible and affect individuals who cannot give consent. Some ethicists believe this violates fundamental principles of autonomy and human dignity.

On the other hand, supporters of genetic engineering argue that failing to use available technologies to prevent suffering is itself unethical. They claim that society has a duty to explore responsible innovation and to create clear guidelines that balance benefits with risks.

Ultimately, the question is not just what we can do, but what we should do. As genetic science advances, ethical reflection must evolve with it. By engaging in informed public debate, we can shape a future where technology serves humanity without compromising our moral values.

Q1. What key dilemma about genetic engineering does the article introduce?

1. It cannot successfully remove mutations without harming nearby healthy genes.
2. Researchers hesitate because funding for clinical trials remains extremely limited.
3. Scientific capabilities advance faster than society decides ethical boundaries to observe.
4. Gene editing shows no potential benefits beyond agricultural crop improvement.

Q2. Why do some critics reject using gene editing purely for enhancement?

1. They believe intelligence cannot be accurately measured by genetic markers.
2. They fear a divide where wealth secures superior genetically enhanced offspring.
3. They think sports organizations would immediately ban modified elite athletes worldwide.
4. They suspect enhancement would inadvertently resurrect extinct pathogens in human populations.

Q3. Which of the following statements is NOT supported by the passage?

1. Therapeutic gene editing could inadvertently cause unforeseen long-term health consequences.
2. Some ethicists argue society is obliged to harness technology against suffering.
3. Current global laws wholly prohibit germline editing in all scientific contexts.
4. Germline modifications affect individuals incapable of providing consent to changes.