TOEFL 2026 Speaking Practice — Level Hard (for score 100+) #07

I vividly remember when I first read about CRISPR technology in a science magazine back in college. It was honestly mind-blowing. What really caught my attention was how researchers could, like, meticulously edit DNA sequences almost as if they were fixing typos in a document. At the time, I felt pretty optimistic about it because of the potential to eradicate hereditary diseases, which is huge, right? But, I mean, it also felt kind of unsettling. The ethical implications were immediately apparent to me; I started worrying about the prospect of ‘designer babies’ and the systemic inequality it might cause if only the wealthy could access these enhancements. It was a really nuanced realization that scientific progress isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s just powerful. That shift in my perspective pretty much defined how I view bioethics today.

In my case, I tend to keep a pretty close watch on genetic engineering developments, mainly through science podcasts like ‘Radiolab’. I’d say I’m inherently fascinated by the field, so I make it a point to stay updated on things like CRISPR and gene editing. I think my preference for this level of involvement comes from a need to understand the potential, as well as the risks. I mean, it’s not just about the science; it’s about the ethical implications, right? For instance, last month I read a compelling article about designer babies, and it really forced me to reflect on the moral boundaries we’re pushing. Because of this, I feel much more prepared to engage in these discussions. Ultimately, I prefer being informed because it helps me navigate the nuanced reality of these advancements rather than just fearing the unknown.

In my opinion, I believe that the potential medical benefits of genetic engineering definitely outweigh the ethical risks, provided we move forward with caution. I mean, think about conditions like Huntington’s disease—it’s a devastating, hereditary condition that essentially destroys a person’s quality of life. If we have the technology to identify and edit those specific genes, it seems almost immoral not to use it. For instance, recent advancements in CRISPR technology have shown us that we can potentially rectify these genetic errors at the source. It’s a profound shift in how we approach medicine, moving from just treating symptoms to fundamentally curing the root cause. Of course, we need strict regulations to prevent misuse, but the ability to alleviate systemic suffering is just too significant to ignore. So, I’m convinced that responsible genetic modification is a necessary step for our future.

I believe that society should absolutely implement rigorous international regulations on genetic engineering. It’s not just about scientific progress; it’s about the ethical implications of tampering with our DNA. If we allow for ‘designer babies,’ we’re essentially creating a society where wealth dictates biological traits, which I think is inherently problematic. For instance, think about the CRISPR experiments in China a few years ago—they caused a massive global outcry for a reason. Because of this, I’d say we need a unified, global framework to prevent labs from going rogue. Without these boundaries, we might inadvertently create systemic health disparities that could last for generations. So, while I’m all for medical innovation, I’m convinced that setting strict legal limits on germline modification is a pivotal step toward protecting our shared human future.