1. Take an Interview — Cloning, Biotechnology, and Ethics
An interviewer will ask you questions. Answer the questions and be sure to say as much as you can in the time allowed.
No time for preparation will be provided. You will have 45 seconds to answer each question.
You have agreed to take part in a research study about cloning, biotechnology, and public attitudes toward scientific innovation. You will have a short online interview with a researcher. The researcher will ask you some questions.
Interviewer: Thank you for speaking with me today. I’m conducting a study about people’s awareness of cloning and biotechnology. I’d like to ask you some questions. [2-second pause] To begin with, how familiar are you with the idea of cloning animals or cells for scientific and medical purposes?
As far as I know, cloning can be useful in medicine, but on many ethical issues the jury is still out.
Interviewer: Great. People react to cloning in different ways. Some see it as a breakthrough that could help medicine, while others find it disturbing or unnatural. What kind of reaction do you personally have to cloning? Why?
What worries me most is the possibility of crossing a moral line if scientific progress is not properly controlled.
Interviewer: Some researchers believe that cloning could help protect endangered species or restore valuable genetic material. Others argue that conservation should focus on natural habitats instead. Do you think cloning should be used to protect endangered animals? Why or why not?
Rather than relying only on cloning, we should protect natural habitats and maintain genetic diversity.
Главная проблема заключается в том, что без более всеобъемлющей стратегии сохранения природы клонирование не решит основную причину исчезновения видов.
The main issue is that without a broader conservation strategy, cloning will not solve the root cause of species extinction.
Interviewer: Let’s talk about human health. Some people think cloning-related technologies could help produce tissues or organs for transplantation. Others worry that this may lead to human cloning. Should governments support therapeutic cloning research? Why or why not?
At the same time, without clear rules, this field could become a slippery slope and lead to misuse.
Interviewer: Finally, I’d like to ask about regulation. Should cloning technologies be controlled mainly by scientists, by governments, or by international organisations? What approach would be safest?
Neither scientists nor politicians should have full control, because this area requires both scientific expertise and public accountability.
Самым безопасным подходом было бы создать международные правила, чтобы все участники действовали согласованно и существовала система сдержек и противовесов.
The safest approach would be to create international guidelines so that all participants are on the same page and there are checks and balances.
2_2. Take an Interview — Cosmetics, Household Chemicals, and Consumer Safety
An interviewer will ask you questions. Answer the questions and be sure to say as much as you can in the time allowed.
No time for preparation will be provided. You will have 45 seconds to answer each question.
You have agreed to take part in a research study about cosmetics, skincare products, household chemicals, and consumer awareness. You will have a short online interview with a researcher. The researcher will ask you some questions.
Interviewer: Thank you for speaking with me today. I’m conducting a study about how people choose cosmetics and household chemical products. I’d like to ask you some questions. [2-second pause] To begin with, how carefully do you usually read labels or ingredient lists before buying skincare products, shampoo, or cleaning products?
To be honest, I usually try to check the label, especially when I buy skincare products or household chemicals.
Я обычно обращаю внимание на активные компоненты и потенциальные раздражители, потому что некоторые вещества могут вызывать сухость или аллергическую реакцию.
It seems to me that it is better to be safe than sorry, especially if a product is used regularly.
Interviewer: Great. Some people trust expensive skincare brands more, while others believe that price does not always reflect quality or safety. What role does price play when you choose cosmetics or personal-care products?
I usually take marketing claims with a grain of salt because you should not judge a product only by its cover.
Interviewer: Some consumers prefer products advertised as natural, organic, or chemical-free. Others say these words can be misleading because all products contain chemicals. How do you feel about such labels?
Instead of trusting bold claims, I would rather read between the lines and make an evidence-based choice.
Interviewer: Let’s talk about safety. Some people worry about preservatives, fragrances, dyes, or strong cleaning agents. Should governments regulate cosmetics and household chemicals more strictly? Why or why not?
At the very least, companies should err on the side of caution and clearly list substances that may cause an allergic reaction.
Interviewer: Finally, I’d like to ask about environmental impact. Many cosmetics and cleaning products come in plastic packaging or contain ingredients that may enter water systems. What should companies and consumers do to make these products more sustainable?
From an environmental perspective, companies should reduce plastic packaging and use more biodegradable ingredients.
Компаниям следует сосредоточиться на экологичной упаковке и продуктах с возможностью повторного наполнения, а потребителям следует выбирать такие варианты, когда это возможно.
In the long run, this could reduce water pollution and become a step in the right direction for the whole industry.
3. Independent speaking_1
Using words from the text and lecture in exercise 1, prepare answers to the following questions:
a. If it were safe and legal, would you prefer to have a child via reproductive cloning using your own DNA, or by conventional reproduction/adoption? Explain your preference with two reasons and one example.
reproductive cloning – репродуктивное клонирование
conventional reproduction – традиционное/естественное размножение
adoption – усыновление/удочерение
genetic parentage – генетическое родительство
social parenting – социальное родительство/воспитание
on balance – в целом; взвесив все «за» и «против»
personal autonomy – личная автономия/самостоятельность
slippery-slope concerns – опасения «скользкой дорожки»
long-term ramifications – долгосрочные последствия
to normalize / stigmatize (cloning) – нормализовать / стигматизировать (клонирование)
b. Would you prioritize therapeutic cloning to grow patient-matched tissues/organs, or rely on donation and prevention programs in your country? Defend your choice.
therapeutic cloning – терапевтическое клонирование
patient-matched tissue – ткань, совместимая с пациентом
immunological match – иммунологическое соответствие
organ shortage – дефицит донорских органов
allocation of scarce resources – распределение ограниченных ресурсов
cost–benefit calculus – соотношение затрат и выгод
risk–benefit trade-off – компромисс риск–выгода
transparent oversight – прозрачный надзор/контроль
ethical safeguards – этические гарантии/предохранители
public trust – общественное доверие
c. To protect endangered species, would you invest primarily in habitat restoration and anti-poaching, or in cloning selected animals to rebuild populations? State your choice and support it with two concrete reasons.
Advances in biotechnology suggest that human cloning could deliver concrete benefits if pursued under strict oversight. First, cloning offers a lifeline to infertile couples who want a genetically related child without passing on heritable diseases—a clone could be created from a screened, healthy cell line. Second, cloning could accelerate regenerative medicine by producing genetically matched tissues for burn victims or patients with organ failure, potentially reducing lifelong dependence on immunosuppressants. Third, universities would gain powerful research models for understanding early development and for testing therapies on patient-specific cells, improving safety before clinical trials. Finally, societies often celebrate the transmission of cultural and family legacies; cloning, advocates argue, simply extends that continuity while lowering healthcare costs and preserving hard-won talents. With transparent regulation, mandatory counseling and bans on exploitation, the potential benefits—family formation, medical breakthroughs and economic savings—outweigh speculative harms.
Step 2. Listen to the lecture
Note: Prepare a sheet of paper and a pen/pencil. Take notes of illustrations of the ideas given in the reading!
Professor: While human cloning lists attractive outcomes, each rests on assumptions that are far from settled.
First, the proposal skips over the psychological status and autonomy of the clone. Creating a person primarily to satisfy someone else’s preferences—to “carry a legacy,” to supply tissues, or to mirror a donor—risks treating that child as a means rather than an end. We already see identity tensions in contexts where origins are unusually curated; scaling that up through cloning may amplify expectation pressure, stigma, and a sense of being designed for another’s goals.
Second, the “continuity” argument ignores population-level genetics. If cloning becomes socially acceptable, choices may track fashionable traits—height, appearance, or perceived cognitive styles—leading to narrowed genetic diversity. Biology values heterogeneity: it buffers populations against pathogens and environmental shocks. A drift toward a genetic monoculture can increase vulnerability and deepen social sorting between those who can afford bespoke genomes and those who cannot.
Third, the medical promises understate biological uncertainty. Reprogramming mature cells is not trivial; epigenetic and imprinting processes can misfire, with side effects we do not fully understand. Even if some risks are rare, they would be borne by the clone, not the decision-maker. Moreover, many clinical goals have non-cloning alternatives: preimplantation genetic testing for heritable disease, iPSC-based tissues for repair and conventional organ donation reforms. These options deliver benefits without normalizing the production of people for instrumental reasons.
In short, the benefits are speculative and distributable; the harms may be personal, lasting and hard to consent to in advance.
Using points and examples from the lecture, explain how the professor challenges the claims made in the reading. Link each lecture point to the specific idea it casts doubt on.
Step 3. Prepare and record your answer (send in a messenger)
“The professor disputes these claims and explains why.”
First Lecture Point → Related Reading Claim
“To begin with, she argues that… which contradicts the reading’s claim that…”
Second Lecture Point → Related Reading Claim
“Next, she points out… thereby casting doubt on…”
Advanced Template:
According to the reading, [title of reading] claims [benefit 1/2/3].
The professor challenges these statements with three counterpoints.
First, she highlights issues of autonomy and expectation pressure for clones. Moreover, she notes that creating a person to meet others’ goals treats them instrumentally.
Second, she warns about narrowed genetic diversity if society chases fashionable traits, increasing vulnerability at the population level.
Third, she emphasizes uncertain biological side effects (epigenetic/imprinting errors) and points to non-cloning alternatives such as iPSC-based tissues and organ-donation reforms.
Lecture (Biology/Biomedical Engineering): How Scientists Try to “Clone” Individual Organs
Professor: Today we’ll survey four major approaches to creating transplantable organs without cloning an entire human.
1) Decellularization–recellularization. Engineers take a donor organ—animal or human—remove all the cells but keep the extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold and vascular tree. Then they seed the scaffold with patient-derived cells and mature it in a perfusion bioreactor. Current hurdles: completely stripping cells without damaging ECM, uniform reseeding (especially capillaries), forming a non-thrombogenic endothelium, and achieving long-term function after anastomosis to the patient’s blood supply. Xenogenic scaffolds raise immune and regulatory questions.
2) 3D bioprinting with bioinks. Printers deposit cells and hydrogels layer by layer to build tissue with designed geometry—valves, ducts, even branching vessels. Hurdles: trade-off between printability and cell viability, weak mechanical strength, micro-vascularization at capillary scale, and functional maturation (e.g., bile flow in livers, filtration in kidneys).
3) Organoids and assembloids. These are self-organizing mini-organs derived from pluripotent stem cells that can be fused into larger constructs. Hurdles: diffusion limits without perfusion, inconsistent size/function between batches, incomplete innervation and duct systems, and variability that complicates GMP-grade manufacturing.
4) In-vivo chimeric growth (blastocyst complementation). Human cells are introduced into an animal embryo lacking a specific organ program, so the human cells fill that niche. Hurdles: ethics and law (species boundaries, germ-line/brain contribution), cross-species immune risks, and developmental mismatch in size and timing.
You may also hear about therapeutic cloning via SCNT to derive patient-matched embryonic stem-cell lines; in practice, iPSCs are more accessible, and both routes must address genetic/epigenetic stability and tumorigenicity.
Bottom line: Across all methods, the hardest shared problems are vascularization, innervation/duct integration, immune compatibility, scalable manufacturing, and long-term safety. Progress is real—but “cloned” organs must work reliably inside a human body, not just in a dish.
Define the concept of separate organ cloning and summarize the four methods described by the professor. For each method, mention at least one current difficulty. You will have 20 seconds to prepare and 60 seconds to speak.
Step 3. Prepare and record your answer (send in a messenger)