Articles for ielts the dangers of being over-confident

Abruptly(adv) - in a sudden, unexpected and often unpleasant way 
Vague(adj) - not having or giving enough information or details about something 
Orientation(n) - the direction in which an object faces 
Predecessor(n) - a thing, such as a machine, that has been followed or replaced by 
something else 
Specimen(n) - a single example of something, especially an animal or a plant 
Span(v) - to last all through a period of time or to cover the whole of it 
To correspond (v) - to be the same as or match something 
Whisker(n) - any of the long, stiff hairs that grow near the mouth of a cat, mouse, 
etc. 
articles_for_IELTS articles_for_IELTS 

---

articles_for_IELTS articles_for_IELTS 
Genetics, for good or bad 
For more than 50 years, biologists have been genetically engineering 
organisms in increasingly precise ways. From the early, crude methods of the 1960s 
and 1970s, to the modern “gene editing” exemplified by CRISPR technology, 
genetic engineering has elicited great hopes and terrifying fears. In his disturbing 
and readable new book The Genetic Age: Our perilous quest to edit life, biologist 
and science historian Matthew Cobb tells the story of this field. Cobb’s last book, 
The Idea of the Brain, was a history of neuroscience, but this is a follow-up to 2015’s 
Life’s Greatest Secret, about cracking the genetic code.
Cobb keeps his focus on the applications of genetic engineering with the 
biggest impact, especially those that pose – or are perceived to pose – the greatest 
risk. In doing so, he calls attention to three areas of current research that are of 
particular concern. The first is human germline editing, which involves tweaking a 
person’s DNA in such a way that the changes can be passed on to their descendants. 
The second is the concept of a gene drive, a “genetic chain reaction” that can spread 
a particular trait through a population and thus reshape an ecosystem. The third is 
gain-of-function research, in which microbiologists, anxious to prevent pandemics, 
make more dangerous versions of pathogens to forecast how they might evolve in 
nature.
All three are claimed to have huge potential benefits. All three carry self-
evident risks. Cobb is concerned, writing that “there were things that I discovered 
that made my blood run cold”. But he is aware there have been false alarms in the 
past. This is a technology that short-circuits our brains to some extent, forcing us to 
reconsider assumptions such as “natural” things are “good” and “unnatural” things 
are “bad”. So, he wisely second-guesses himself, wondering if he is just overreacting 
because the technologies are new and strange.
That’s where the history comes in. Cobb recalls previous controversies, 
including the 1990s scare about genetically modified “Frankenfoods”. With the 
benefit of hindsight, how bad were they? He finds some reassurance: notably that 
geneticists are the only group of scientists to have imposed moratoria on their own 
work while risks were assessed. Furthermore, many concerns turned out to be largely 
baseless – genetically modified foods aren’t inherently bad for you – or could be 
handled by safety procedures and regulations.

---

However, Cobb also identifies a streak of hubris running through the field. 
Many practitioners are too in love with clever technical solutions and can’t resist 
implementing them, without considering if the benefits are worth the risk. He quotes 
a line from Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not 
they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Cobb ends by raising the 
question of priorities. Is all this the best use of money? Proponents want to spend 
millions to save a handful of people from a single genetic disease, but that money 
could save millions of people from more common threats, such as dirty water. 
Sketchy plans to recreate extinct animals like mammoths will eat up resources that 
could be spent preserving threatened species. Genetic engineering, it turns out, 
probably won’t end the world – but a lot of it might be a distracting waste of money.