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.
reproductive animal cloning – репродуктивное клонирование животных
therapeutic cloning – терапевтическое клонирование
organoid research – исследование органоидов
enhanced oversight – усиленный надзор/контроль
low success rate – низкая результативность
blanket ban – всеобщий/полный запрет
hands-on training – практическая подготовка
externship – стажировка вне кампуса
equity of access – равный доступ (к обучению)
phased approach – поэтапный подход
animal welfare safeguards – меры по защите благополучия животных
Step1. Read the following announcement:
Read: 1:00
From: Office of the Provost
Date: August 15, 2025
Following a faculty vote, the University will prohibit reproductive animal cloning in campus facilities. Labs may continue therapeutic cloning and organoid research under enhanced oversight (protocol pre-review, quarterly audits). The policy cites animal-welfare concerns and the low success rates associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer, while noting alternatives such as computational models and iPSC-derived tissues. Veterinary science courses affected this year will receive additional funding to arrange externships at partner institutions. The policy takes effect January 1; affected instructors will receive guidance this month.
Step 2. Listen to the audio file below. During the real exam you will hear the audio only once. But now you can listen to it as many times as you want.
Student: Honestly, I don’t think a blanket ban is the right move. I’m a pre-vet student, and we’re already short on hands-on training. Reproductive cloning isn’t just “making copies”—it teaches real-world skills in reproductive biology, embryo handling, and welfare monitoring. The memo says we can do externships, but those spots are limited and often cost-prohibitive. That creates an equity problem: students with money and flexible schedules get experience; others get left behind. Also, pointing to a low success rate is exactly why we should improve techniques under strict oversight, not shut them down. If welfare is the concern, set caps on procedures, require veterinary supervision, and publish outcomes. We already use therapeutic cloning and organoids, which are great, but they don’t replace every competency we need. A phased approach with tougher safeguards would protect animals and our education better than an absolute prohibition.
Step 3. Prepare and record (in a messenger) an answer to the following question.
Preparation time - 30 seconds, speaking time - 60 seconds.
The student expresses her opinion of the university’s announcement. State her opinion and the reasons she gives for holding that opinion.
- "There are two reasons why the woman supports/objects to this …"
- "The woman has negative feelings about this decision." (for mixed-opinion scenarios).
First Reason:
- "To start with, she states that…"
Second Reason:
- "In addition, she points out that…"
Advanced Template:
The announcement/article discusses [the proposed change].
This is partly due to [reason 1], as well as [reason 2].
The woman promptly voices her support/objection to this change.
Initially, she claims that [details], elaborating further that [additional details].
Moreover, she seems to believe that [details]. From her perspective, [more detailed reasoning].
Integrated speaking_3
Step1. Read the text
Reading time: 45 seconds
Read: 00:45
Why Human Cloning Deserves a Second Look
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)