C1 Reading Test – Bioethics of Gene Editing (Somatic vs Germline)

Read the passage (≈380–420 words) and choose the best answer (A–D).

Debates about gene editing often begin with a distinction: somatic edits target cells in an existing individual and are not inherited; germline edits affect eggs, sperm, or embryos and can pass to future generations. Ethically, this boundary matters because consent, risk, and social impact look different across the two domains. In somatic therapies for severe disease, many bioethicists argue that the key questions are familiar: does the patient (or guardian) give informed consent, are risks proportionate to potential benefit, and is access reasonably fair? Germline proposals add further layers—future persons cannot consent, and uncertain long-term effects might propagate widely before being detected.

Therapy–enhancement lines complicate matters. A somatic edit restoring a blood-clotting factor aligns with traditional medical aims, yet the same tools could be used to “optimize” height or cognition. Opponents of enhancement warn about status competition and new forms of discrimination; supporters reply that banning enhancements could entrench existing genetic luck and social inequality. Both sides agree that rhetoric outruns evidence: many complex traits are polygenic and environmentally entangled, making predictable enhancement speculative.

Risk assessment is technically specific. Off-target changes and mosaicism remain concerns, though screening steps have improved. Germline edits raise a special worry: if a harmful change slips through, each birth becomes a transmission event. Some propose a moratorium on clinical germline use until safety thresholds and governance structures are clearer; others fear that blanket bans drive research to opaque jurisdictions. Between these poles lie graduated regimes: transparent registries, international reporting, and staged authorizations starting with conditions of high severity and no alternative interventions.

Justice is a recurring test. If somatic therapies are scarce and expensive, they may initially widen health gaps. Policy tools—public funding, tiered pricing, tech transfer—can temper this, but require political will. Public engagement also matters for legitimacy: communities want a voice in defining “serious disease,” acceptable risk, and when research should pause. Ultimately, gene editing is not just a lab technique; it is a social choice about which futures we are willing to build, and who gets to decide.