MR-GMO&I-Cont-S

Question 1 to 10: Intelligence-Enhancing Gene Therapy: Progress or Concern?

Consider the passage below and answer the questions that follow.

Dr. Asha Verma and her team at a famous research center in India have found a gene related to intelligence. They believe that gene therapy might help make children smarter. Now, the government is thinking about whether parents should be allowed to use this technology before a child is born.

People have different opinions about this:

Some people support it. They say it can help children learn better and make India stronger in science and technology.
Some people are worried. They think only rich families will be able to use this, and that will create more inequality in society.
Religious and cultural leaders say that intelligence should come from hard work, not from changing genes.
Scientists who study evolution say intelligence has developed naturally over time, and changing genes might disturb this process.
Other people argue that humans have already changed evolution through farming and medicine.

1. What should we consider before allowing gene therapy to increase intelligence?

If science can make people smarter, we should start using it soon.

Before using it, we should check if everyone can benefit fairly.

There should be rules to prevent misuse before allowing it.

It should be used only if it is safe, and properly tested.

2. Even if there are some risks, should parents be allowed to use gene therapy to make their children more intelligent?

Parents should decide for their children.

It should be allowed with strict rules to prevent misuse.

No, it is unfair and may cause health and social problems.

Yes, it is just a scientific progress with no big issues.

3. If gene therapy is allowed to increase intelligence, how can we make it fair for everyone?

Let rich people pay; new technology is always expensive.

The government should control the price so everyone gets equal chance.

Use it only for diseases, not to make people intelligent.

Price doesn’t matter; it will become cheaper in the future.

4. Should we test gene therapy on animals before using it on humans?

Yes, testing on animals helps science and humans.

Animals are for human use, so testing is not wrong.

Maybe, but we should use animals only when necessary and with strict rules.

No, we should use lab models and AI instead of animals.

5. If gene therapy can improve intelligence, should it also be used to change emotions?

Maybe, but we must confirm that it does not harm people.

No, we should study its long-term effects before using it.

Use it only for mental illnesses, not for general emotional changes.

Changing emotions is riskier than changing intelligence.

6. How might gene therapy impact human evolution?

Evolution always changes, and this is just a natural process.

Maybe, but we should think more about present benefits than evolution.

It may affect future generations, so we should be careful.

We must fully study its effect on evolution before using it.

7. Who should decide the rules for gene therapy?

Only scientists and governments; the public may not understand complexities.

Scientists and governments should decide, but public concerns should be considered.

Public, scientists and governments should work together to make rules.

Public opinion should guide research, and to make fair rules.

8. How might gene therapy affect human nature and behaviour?

Yes, it could change human nature, so we must study it first.

Maybe, but improving intelligence is more important than behavioural effects.

It could change how people think and behave, so we should monitor it carefully,

No, intelligence is about learning, different from emotions or personality..

9. Should gene modifications in humans be banned worldwide?

Yes, it may harm future generations, so ban it.

No, banning would slow scientific progress.

They should be used only in a fair and controlled way.

Allow only if proven safe and has no big risks.

10. How should gene therapy rules respect different cultural and ethical beliefs?

Rules should fully follow religious beliefs, even if science disagrees.

Science should decide the rules, even if some beliefs don’t agree.

Rules should consider beliefs and science to make fair decisions.

Rules should consider beliefs but mainly follow science and fairness.

Question11 to 20: Bt BRINJAL AND NATURE: SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED?

Consider the passage below and answer the questions that follow.

An agricultural company in India called Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company Ltd. (Mahyco), created GM (Genetically Modified) Bt brinjal to protect crops from pests (harmful insects). This helps farmers grow more food using little chemicals (pesticides) to kill pests.

But some studies say:

When pollen from Bt brinjal mixes with wild (natural) plants, it might change their genes, which could harm nature and reduce the variety of plants.
If Bt brinjal pollen affects wild plants, it might change how bees pollinate plants.
Over time, pests may also become stronger and resist effects of Bt brinjal, making it less useful.

The government needs to decide: Is Bt brinjal good for farming, or could it harm nature? What do you think?

11. Should Bt brinjal be allowed if it helps farmers but may harm bees and pollination?

No, it should not be approved if it seriously harms bees and pollination.

Yes, but only if strict regulations make sure that bees and nature are protected.

Yes, the benefits to farming are more important than the possible risks to pollination.

Yes, nature and bees will adjust over time, so it is not a big issue.

12. Should Bt brinjal be allowed if its genes may spread to wild plants?

No, Bt genes may spread and harm nature.

Yes, gene mixing happens naturally and is not harmful.

Maybe, but we must have strict rules to control it.

Yes, some gene mixing may happen, but the effect will be small.

13. Should we worry if pests become resistant to Bt brinjal?

No, Bt brinjal will always work, and pests won’t become resistant.

Yes, pests may resist Bt brinjal, leading to more pesticide use and harming nature.

No, pests may adapt, but scientists will create new ways to control them.

Maybe, but farmers and scientists should work together to prevent resistance.

14. Is Bt brinjal the best way to reduce pesticide use?

Bt brinjal helps, but we should also use natural pest control.

Yes, Bt brinjal helps reduce pesticides and supports farming.

No, natural methods like crop rotation and friendly insects are better.

No, pesticides are not harmful enough to need replacements.

15. Should we do more research before approving Bt brinjal?

No, Mahyco company has already done enough research.

No, delays will harm food production and farmers.

Maybe, but current research shows Bt brinjal is mostly safe.

Yes, we must check long-term effects on nature and health first.

16. Who should do more research on Bt brinjal’s effects on bees and nature?

No more research is needed—the company already proved it’s safe.

Government scientists should check the company’s data.

The Mahyco company should do the research since they made it.

Independent researchers should do unbiased studies.

17. Should all farmers have equal access to Bt brinjal?

Yes, it should be affordable and available to all farmers.

Big farms should get it first because they produce more food.

Yes, but only if the farmers can afford it.

No, companies should decide who gets it based on their business needs.

18. Should GM food have labels?

Maybe, but only if people demand labels.

No, labels may make people think GM food is unsafe.

Yes, people have the right to know what they eat.

No, GM food is safe, so labels are not needed.

19. Should GMO seed companies focus only on profit, or also consider farmers and nature?

Yes, consider farmers and nature but only if it doesn’t harm business growth.

Yes, they spend money on research, so profit is most important.

No, food security and nature are more important than profit.

Profit matters, but companies must protect farmers and nature.

20. Which is better: Research companies based in India or abroad?

Indian research is better because it understands local farming needs.

Indian research should collaborate with global experts for better results.

Foreign research is better because it has advanced technology.

Indian research is essential for self-reliance and eco-friendly solutions.

MR (GMO & Intelligence) (Cont-S)