Please note! This task is not part of the original format of the centralised examination. However, it has been designed to help you prepare more effectively for the writing section of the examination.
In the writing part of the exam you will have to choose one task, respectively, Task A or Task B. You will have a chance to take a look on both tasks and decide which one you prefer. Now to help you get prepared for this part of the exam, study Task A and answer multiple choice questions. This will enable you to feel more confident about writing an essay in a real exam.
In the writing part of the exam you will have to choose one task, respectively, Task A or Task B. You will have a chance to take a look on both tasks and decide which one you prefer. Now to help you get prepared for this part of the exam, study Task A and answer multiple choice questions. This will enable you to feel more confident about writing an essay in a real exam.
Task B
Read the following extract from a research article concerning the problem of genetic engineering.
Write an essay in which you:
Read the following extract from a research article concerning the problem of genetic engineering.
Write an essay in which you:
- introduce the general topic and identify the precise issue(s). Outline what your essay will be about,
- discuss the issue(s), supporting your opinion with arguments and examples, including from the text,
- summarise your key points and suggest how society should approach such projects in the future.
You should summarise, paraphrase or quote from the text to support your arguments.
Write your answer in 300–350 words. You have 80 minutes to complete the task.
Write your answer in 300–350 words. You have 80 minutes to complete the task.
Recently the biotech company Colossal Biosciences announced the birth of a lab-born mouse with mammoth DNA, which features shaggy mammoth-like fur and has cold-adapted traits such as the way in which it stores and burns fat. Researchers retrieved and sequenced ancient mammoth DNA. They altered the corresponding genes in lab mice and made other alterations in the rodents’ genome.
What was the purpose of this feat of genetic engineering? Colossal’s pitch is that, with biodiversity, saving existing species will require tweaking their DNA to make them more resilient. The researchers at the company also claim that bringing back extinct species can help the environment. Company co-founder and CEO Ben Lamm puts the approach in startling terms: “Why leave nature to chance?” In pursuit of such “de-extinction” goals, Colossal has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from everyone from celebrities to the CIA.
But many experts in genetic engineering and conservation are sceptical. Rewilding is risky; species such as wolves and elephants have come into conflict with humans, and others have fallen victim to predators and poachers. No one knows what would happen if a mammoth – or, more technically, an elephant-mammoth hybrid – was released: What would it eat? How would we protect it? Could it reproduce?
As for saving the climate, “we’re looking at a warming world, and [Colossal’s researchers] want to bring back creatures that are adapted to the cold?” says Elsa Panciroli, a palaeontologist at National Museum Scotland. “I study animals from the past, and they should stay in the past.”
Gene editing has a high rate of failure, often killing surrogates and offspring, notes Robert Klitzman, a Columbia University bioethicist who questioned the value the woolly mouse beyond a “wow” factor. Not all of the genetically modified mouse embryos led to successful pregnancies, Colossal’s chief science officer Beth Shapiro says, but “every mouse that was born is still alive.” (The mice were born in mid-October 2024.) She adds that “our mice have enhanced living conditions and are under the full-time care of our veterinary staff. All of our work is overseen by an external ethics board, and only trained scientists interact with the mice.” However, if a mouse were to somehow escape the lab, the potential biological implications pose another concern because the animal could mate with members of wild populations. “Anyone who’s kept pet mice knows they can get out through very small holes,” Panciroli says.
There are also other risks to gene editing. “In certain ancient species’ DNA, you don’t know what the function of this DNA is, so there are more than ethical problems; there are biological hazards from moving and editing the DNA. I’m not sure about the potential risks of this type of work, as the function of ancient
DNA in live mice may be difficult to predict,” says Yale University geneticist Jiangbing.
Shapiro points to the genetic mutations that happen naturally with reproduction and notes that most of these have no impact. “Genetic changes are not, in and of themselves, a cause for concern. That said, we are selecting genetic variation that we intend to have an impact on the way the organism looks or acts, and so more caution is necessary,” she says. “Our approach is to evaluate the impact of edits in as many ways as possible before making them.”
But others are not convinced, especially by the creation of organisms such as the woolly mouse. “It’s arrogance,” says Sue Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “I’m not against technology. I’m not saying nature’s perfect. But this is such a waste of money when conservation is dying for lack of funds. To make some strange animal we can gawk at – we should be past that.”
Adapted from “Company Seeking to Resurrect the Woolly Mammoth Creates a ‘Woolly Mouse’” by Adam Popescu (2025, March 4)
What was the purpose of this feat of genetic engineering? Colossal’s pitch is that, with biodiversity, saving existing species will require tweaking their DNA to make them more resilient. The researchers at the company also claim that bringing back extinct species can help the environment. Company co-founder and CEO Ben Lamm puts the approach in startling terms: “Why leave nature to chance?” In pursuit of such “de-extinction” goals, Colossal has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from everyone from celebrities to the CIA.
But many experts in genetic engineering and conservation are sceptical. Rewilding is risky; species such as wolves and elephants have come into conflict with humans, and others have fallen victim to predators and poachers. No one knows what would happen if a mammoth – or, more technically, an elephant-mammoth hybrid – was released: What would it eat? How would we protect it? Could it reproduce?
As for saving the climate, “we’re looking at a warming world, and [Colossal’s researchers] want to bring back creatures that are adapted to the cold?” says Elsa Panciroli, a palaeontologist at National Museum Scotland. “I study animals from the past, and they should stay in the past.”
Gene editing has a high rate of failure, often killing surrogates and offspring, notes Robert Klitzman, a Columbia University bioethicist who questioned the value the woolly mouse beyond a “wow” factor. Not all of the genetically modified mouse embryos led to successful pregnancies, Colossal’s chief science officer Beth Shapiro says, but “every mouse that was born is still alive.” (The mice were born in mid-October 2024.) She adds that “our mice have enhanced living conditions and are under the full-time care of our veterinary staff. All of our work is overseen by an external ethics board, and only trained scientists interact with the mice.” However, if a mouse were to somehow escape the lab, the potential biological implications pose another concern because the animal could mate with members of wild populations. “Anyone who’s kept pet mice knows they can get out through very small holes,” Panciroli says.
There are also other risks to gene editing. “In certain ancient species’ DNA, you don’t know what the function of this DNA is, so there are more than ethical problems; there are biological hazards from moving and editing the DNA. I’m not sure about the potential risks of this type of work, as the function of ancient
DNA in live mice may be difficult to predict,” says Yale University geneticist Jiangbing.
Shapiro points to the genetic mutations that happen naturally with reproduction and notes that most of these have no impact. “Genetic changes are not, in and of themselves, a cause for concern. That said, we are selecting genetic variation that we intend to have an impact on the way the organism looks or acts, and so more caution is necessary,” she says. “Our approach is to evaluate the impact of edits in as many ways as possible before making them.”
But others are not convinced, especially by the creation of organisms such as the woolly mouse. “It’s arrogance,” says Sue Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “I’m not against technology. I’m not saying nature’s perfect. But this is such a waste of money when conservation is dying for lack of funds. To make some strange animal we can gawk at – we should be past that.”
Adapted from “Company Seeking to Resurrect the Woolly Mammoth Creates a ‘Woolly Mouse’” by Adam Popescu (2025, March 4)
1. Which issues should you focus on when discussing the problems raised in Text B?
2. You want to argue that genetic engineering could help protect endangered species. Which evidence from the article best supports your argument?
3. Which sentence best paraphrases the article's concerns about releasing genetically modified animals into the wild?
4. How can you show that you have considered different opinions about genetic engineering?
Atsauce:
https://www.viaa.gov.lv. Centralizētais eksāmens par vispārējās vidējās izglītības apguvi angļu valodā (augstākais mācību satura apguves līmenis), 2026
Lai iesniegtu atbildi un redzētu rezultātus, Tev nepieciešams autorizēties. Lūdzu, ielogojies savā profilā vai reģistrējies portālā!