Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
22 Aug 2025, 21:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
The rapid maturation of gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR-Cas9, has altered the landscape of modern genetics. By allowing nucleotide-level changes to DNA, these tools could eradicate single-gene disorders, boost crop resilience, and conceivably influence human longevity. Yet many discussions to date have lingered on technical feasibility and clinical promise, postponing a thorough ethical reckoning for “later phases.” Policymakers now face the challenge of weighing unprecedented therapeutic possibilities against social, legal, and ecological risks that remain only partially understood.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses, therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other, share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest, or the most permissive, jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
According to the passage, the chief impediment to creating a unified system of gene-editing rules is
A. the pace at which the science advances, outstripping lawmakers’ ability to keep up.
B. disagreement among nations over which applications of gene editing should be permitted.
C. the lack of adequate funding for large-scale, independently overseen experiments.
D. fears that genetically modified crops will irreversibly damage local ecosystems.
E. the general public’s limited awareness of how many diseases stem from single-gene defects.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses, therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other, share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest, or the most permissive, jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
According to the passage, the chief impediment to creating a unified system of gene-editing rules is
A. the pace at which the science advances, outstripping lawmakers’ ability to keep up.
B. disagreement among nations over which applications of gene editing should be permitted.
C. the lack of adequate funding for large-scale, independently overseen experiments.
D. fears that genetically modified crops will irreversibly damage local ecosystems.
E. the general public’s limited awareness of how many diseases stem from single-gene defects.
22 Aug 2025, 21:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
The rapid maturation of gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR-Cas9, has altered the landscape of modern genetics. By allowing nucleotide-level changes to DNA, these tools could eradicate single-gene disorders, boost crop resilience, and conceivably influence human longevity. Yet many discussions to date have lingered on technical feasibility and clinical promise, postponing a thorough ethical reckoning for “later phases.” Policymakers now face the challenge of weighing unprecedented therapeutic possibilities against social, legal, and ecological risks that remain only partially understood.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses, therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other, share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest, or the most permissive, jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
According to the passage, the chief impediment to creating a unified system of gene-editing rules is
A. the pace at which the science advances, outstripping lawmakers’ ability to keep up.
B. disagreement among nations over which applications of gene editing should be permitted.
C. the lack of adequate funding for large-scale, independently overseen experiments.
D. fears that genetically modified crops will irreversibly damage local ecosystems.
E. the general public’s limited awareness of how many diseases stem from single-gene defects.
A) Incorrect: The author notes rapid progress, but nowhere claims legislative lag is the most significant obstacle; instead, conflicting national bioethical norms dominate the discussion.
B) Correct Answer: The passage repeatedly mentions that nations interpret bioethics through “distinct cultural lenses,” leading to divergent policies that make coordination difficult.
C) Incorrect: Funding and oversight are presented as components of a responsible framework, not as the primary barrier to creating one.
D) Incorrect: The passage treats Ecological Harm as consequences of uncoordinated policies, not as the main impediment to forming those policies.
E) Incorrect: The passage does not argue that low disease-awareness blocks regulatory consensus; the stumbling block lies at the intergovernmental level.
Answer: B
The rapid maturation of gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR-Cas9, has altered the landscape of modern genetics. By allowing nucleotide-level changes to DNA, these tools could eradicate single-gene disorders, boost crop resilience, and conceivably influence human longevity. Yet many discussions to date have lingered on technical feasibility and clinical promise, postponing a thorough ethical reckoning for “later phases.” Policymakers now face the challenge of weighing unprecedented therapeutic possibilities against social, legal, and ecological risks that remain only partially understood.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses, therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other, share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest, or the most permissive, jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
According to the passage, the chief impediment to creating a unified system of gene-editing rules is
A. the pace at which the science advances, outstripping lawmakers’ ability to keep up.
B. disagreement among nations over which applications of gene editing should be permitted.
C. the lack of adequate funding for large-scale, independently overseen experiments.
D. fears that genetically modified crops will irreversibly damage local ecosystems.
E. the general public’s limited awareness of how many diseases stem from single-gene defects.
A) Incorrect: The author notes rapid progress, but nowhere claims legislative lag is the most significant obstacle; instead, conflicting national bioethical norms dominate the discussion.
B) Correct Answer: The passage repeatedly mentions that nations interpret bioethics through “distinct cultural lenses,” leading to divergent policies that make coordination difficult.
C) Incorrect: Funding and oversight are presented as components of a responsible framework, not as the primary barrier to creating one.
D) Incorrect: The passage treats Ecological Harm as consequences of uncoordinated policies, not as the main impediment to forming those policies.
E) Incorrect: The passage does not argue that low disease-awareness blocks regulatory consensus; the stumbling block lies at the intergovernmental level.
Answer: B
