AC-T2-205 Academic · Task 2 · advanced · 40 min · 250+ words Two-Part Question Science

Funding Drought-Resistant Gene-Edited Crops

The question

Scientists are now able to edit the genes of crops so that they can survive long periods of drought. Some people oppose this research on ethical and environmental grounds. Why do some people object to this type of research? Should governments fund it despite these concerns? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Instructions

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. • Answer every part of the question fully. • Give reasons and examples for each answer. • Make your position clear and keep your answers relevant to the question. • Organise your ideas into clear paragraphs and use cohesive devices.

How to approach this two-part question question

A two-part question asks two direct questions. Answer both fully, one in each body paragraph.

Paraphrase the topic and say how you will answer both questions.
Body 1 answers question one with reasons and an example.
Body 2 answers question two with reasons and an example.
Conclude with a short summary of both answers.

How to plan this answer

Structure

Introduction: paraphrase the gene editing of drought-resistant crops and the objections to it, and state that you will answer both parts of the question.
Body 1: answer the first question, explaining the ethical and environmental objections, such as unknown effects on ecosystems and concerns about altering food.
Body 2: answer the second question with reasons for government funding, such as food security under drought and the role of public research in safety testing.
Body 3 (optional): the conditions under which funding should be given, such as independent risk assessment and public consultation.
Conclusion: restate your answer to both questions clearly.

Idea bank

Opponents worry that gene-edited crops could cross-breed with wild relatives and affect local ecosystems in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Some people object on moral grounds to altering the genetic make-up of food, particularly when they believe that nature should not be changed for commercial reasons.
Drought-resistant varieties could protect harvests in regions where rainfall has become less reliable, reducing the risk of famine.
Publicly funded research can ensure that safety testing is independent of commercial interests, which is harder when private companies control the results.
Governments could require long-term monitoring of field trials, which would address concerns about ecological effects before wide planting.
Some countries have approved certain gene-edited crops after assessment, which suggests that case-by-case regulation is possible without a total ban.

Useful vocabulary

gene editing: Gene editing allows scientists to alter specific traits in a crop.
drought resistance: Drought resistance is a key goal for farmers in semi-arid regions.
ecological risk: The ecological risk of gene-edited crops depends on how they interact with wild plants.
food security: Better crops can strengthen food security in regions prone to drought.
independent oversight: Independent oversight is needed to ensure that safety tests are credible.
unintended consequences: There is a risk of unintended consequences that may only become visible years later.
public funding: Public funding can support research that might not be profitable for companies.
on ethical grounds: Some people reject the research on ethical grounds.
it is justified if: Funding is justified if the research is subject to strict safety testing.
a balance must be struck between: A balance must be struck between innovation and precaution.

Common mistakes

Answering only one of the two questions, or giving one answer to both without separating the reasons for the objections from the case for funding.
Describing the opponents' views in a general way, such as 'some people are worried', without naming a specific concern such as ecological or ethical risk.
Making a claim that gene editing is the same as older breeding methods without any explanation, which the examiner may see as unsupported.
Saying that governments should fund the research without stating conditions, which leaves the answer one-sided and unexplained.
Using technical jargon, such as the names of specific genes or proteins, that is not explained and adds little to the argument.

Examiner tip: Answer each question in its own paragraph, and make clear whether your answer to the funding question is yes, no or yes with conditions.

Model answers by band score

Written for this question to show what changes from one band to the next. Try the task yourself first, then compare.

Band 6 answer

Nowadays scientists can change the genes of crops so they can live when there is not rain for a long time. Some people are against this research because of ethical and environmental reasons. In my opinion, the governments should fund this research, although there are some problems. There are two main reasons why people object to it. The first is ethical. Some people believe that it is not natural to change the genes of plants and that scientists are playing God. For religious people this is a serious problem. They also worry that big companies will own the new seeds and the poor farmers will have to pay a lot of money for it. The second reason is the environment. The edited crops may spread their genes to the wild plants and this can damage the nature. Also, nobody know what will happen to the health of people who eat these food after many years. However, I think the government should give money for this research. The climate is changing and drought is becoming more common in many places such as Africa and Australia. When the crops die, farmers lose their income and people can not get enough food, so there is hunger. Drought-resistant crops could solve this problem. For example, in some countries scientist have already made rice which need less water. Moreover, if the government pay for the research, it can control the rules and make sure that the results are safe. If only private companies do the research, they will think about money more than about safety. The government can also share the new seeds with the poor farmers for free or for a low price. In conclusion, people object because of ethical and environmental worries, but I believe that the governments should fund the research because it can help to feed the world.

Why this is band 6

Both parts of the question are answered: reasons for objections (ethical, environmental) and a clear position on funding, so the response is complete.
Ideas are relevant with a general example (rice that needs less water) but remain thinly developed and a little vague.
Frequent grammatical and word-choice errors ('nobody know', 'scientist have', 'damage the nature', 'these food'), with a limited range and repetition of 'people' and 'government'.
Band 7 would explain objections with greater precision, give a more specific example and use a wider range of structures with fewer errors.

Band 7 answer

Advances in gene editing now allow scientists to create crops that can survive prolonged drought. Although this research is controversial, I believe that governments should fund it, provided it is carefully regulated. Critics object for two main reasons. The first is ethical. Some people consider it wrong to alter the genetic make-up of living organisms, arguing that humans are interfering with nature, and others fear that a few large corporations will patent the new seeds and make poor farmers dependent on them. The second concern is environmental. Gene-edited plants might cross-breed with wild relatives and alter ecosystems in unpredictable ways, and there are worries that the long-term effects on human health are not yet fully understood. Despite these concerns, public funding is justified. Climate change is making droughts more frequent and more severe in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and Australia, and when harvests fail, millions of people face hunger and farmers lose their livelihoods. Drought-tolerant varieties could stabilise yields and reduce this vulnerability. Researchers have already developed rice and maize that require less water, which suggests that the technology is practical. Moreover, government funding offers a safeguard that private investment cannot. Companies driven by profit may rush products to market, whereas publicly funded laboratories can be required to publish their findings, follow strict safety trials and make seeds available cheaply to small farmers. This would address the main ethical and environmental objections directly. In conclusion, people object to this research because they fear unnatural interference, corporate control and ecological damage, but these risks can be managed through regulation. Given the growing threat of drought to food supplies, governments should support the work.

Why this is band 7

Both questions are answered clearly, with a position stated in the introduction and sustained to the conclusion.
Good range of vocabulary ('patent', 'cross-breed', 'stabilise yields') and well-organised paragraphs, with a few minor errors.
Support is relevant but some claims remain general (the rice and maize example has no detail of where or who).
Band 8 would give more precise, developed examples and tighten the link between each objection and the response to it.

Band 8 answer

Scientists can now edit the genes of crops so that they withstand long periods without rain. While some oppose this research on ethical and environmental grounds, I believe governments should fund it, as long as it is subject to rigorous oversight. The objections fall into two broad categories. Ethically, some people feel that rewriting the genetic code of living things oversteps a moral boundary, treating nature as raw material to be engineered. Others worry about justice: if a handful of corporations patent drought-resistant seeds, smallholders in poor countries could be forced into dependence on them. Environmentally, there are fears that edited genes could spread to wild relatives through cross-pollination, disrupting ecosystems, and that long-term effects on human health remain uncertain. These worries deserve to be taken seriously, but they do not outweigh the case for funding. Drought already destroys harvests in regions such as the Horn of Africa, where failed rains have pushed millions of people into food insecurity, and climate change is expected to make such events more frequent. Crops that maintain their yields with less water could therefore protect both food supplies and the livelihoods of the farmers who grow them. Importantly, the technology is not purely speculative: researchers have already developed drought-tolerant varieties of maize that have been trialled in several African countries. Public funding, moreover, is the best way to meet the objections themselves. Private firms are driven by profit and may be tempted to cut corners, whereas publicly financed research can be required to publish its results, undergo independent safety trials and make the resulting seeds affordable to small farmers. Withholding funds would not stop the research; it would simply leave it entirely in commercial hands. In conclusion, the ethical and ecological objections are understandable, but they are better answered through regulation and public ownership than through refusal, and governments should therefore support the research.

Why this is band 8

Both parts are fully answered with a clear position; the objections are grouped and explained rather than listed.
Ideas are developed with well-selected support (the Horn of Africa, trialled maize) and a strong argument that public funding itself addresses the objections.
Vocabulary is precise and flexible ('oversteps a moral boundary', 'smallholders', 'cut corners') with rare errors and natural cohesion.
Band 9 would integrate the evidence more fully and have more effortless, varied phrasing throughout.

Band 9 answer

Gene editing now allows scientists to produce crops capable of surviving prolonged drought. Although some oppose this work on ethical and environmental grounds, I believe governments should fund it, subject to rigorous independent oversight. The objections fall into two broad groups. Ethically, some people feel that rewriting the genetic code of living organisms oversteps a moral boundary and treats nature as mere raw material. Others raise questions of justice: if a handful of corporations patent drought-tolerant seeds, smallholders in poor countries could be left dependent on them. The environmental concerns are different in kind. Edited genes might spread to wild relatives through cross-pollination and disrupt ecosystems, and the long-term effects on human health, while probably small, cannot yet be fully known. These misgivings deserve to be taken seriously, but they do not outweigh the case for public investment. Drought already devastates harvests in regions such as the Horn of Africa, where repeated failed rains have driven millions into food insecurity, and climate change is expected to make such episodes more frequent. Crops that maintain their yields on less water would protect both food supplies and the livelihoods of the farmers who grow them. This is not mere speculation: drought-tolerant maize has already been developed and trialled in several African countries. Crucially, public funding is itself the best answer to the objections. Commercial laboratories answer to shareholders and may be tempted to cut corners, whereas publicly financed research can be required to publish its data, submit to independent safety trials and license the resulting seeds on affordable terms. To withhold funding would not halt the research; it would merely leave it entirely in private hands, where the very concerns critics raise would be harder to address. In sum, the ethical and ecological objections are understandable, but they are better met through transparent public stewardship than through refusal, and governments should therefore finance the work.

Why this is band 9

Both parts of the question are answered completely, and the explanation of the objections is nuanced ('different in kind', 'while probably small, cannot yet be fully known').
The central argument that public funding answers the objections is fully developed and supported by specific, relevant examples.
Language is sophisticated, flexible and natural ('answer to shareholders', 'public stewardship') and essentially error-free.
Paragraphs are linked seamlessly, with each building on the last, and the conclusion crystallises the position instead of repeating the introduction.

Band levels are our estimate against the public IELTS criteria; they are not official scores.

Write your answer

Sign in with Google to write online and get 8 free answers marked each month against the IELTS band criteria. No card, no password.

Practise all four IELTS skills

Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking with band 8 samples at ieltsa.org.

Try IELTS A