Science, éthique et progrès

Exercice 1 — Reading comprehension
1) The therapy aimed to cure 'a cruel inherited blindness' (a genetic blindness); she had worked on it for 'eleven years'. (1 pt for the goal, 1 pt for the duration/quote.) 2) Hope: if it works, the child 'will see her mother's face for the first time'. Fear: 'If it fails, I will have changed her body forever, and there is no undo button' — the change is irreversible and she feels responsible. (1 pt per feeling + justification.) 3) Her doubts returned because 'offers poured in from private clinics that wanted to sell the treatment for a fortune': she fears the cure will become a privilege of the rich — 'only billionaires could afford to cure their children' / 'A breakthrough that the poor cannot reach is only half a victory.' The ethical problem becomes one of access and equity, not of feasibility. 4) The metaphor: just as 'darkness' is the blindness she cured, unregulated science (re)creates a kind of moral 'darkness' — danger, abuse, inequality. Great power that is not framed by rules causes as much harm as the disease it set out to fight; light/knowledge without ethics is no real light. 5) Expected: Aisha is not against progress — she achieved a major breakthrough — but she believes power must be matched by responsibility, regulation and fairness. The decisive question is not only 'can we?' (capability) but 'should we, and for whom?' (ethics + equity). Reward any nuanced, well-supported answer.

Exercice 2 — Language in context
1) 'the experiment must have failed last night' (must + have + past participle = deduction about the past). 2) 'The trial has been approved by a new ethics committee.' (has been + past participle). 3) 'If the company had tested the drug properly, the scandal would never have happened.' (type 3: if + past perfect). 4) 'a whistleblower' (whistle-blower also accepted).

Exercice 3 — Written expression
Expected points: a clear, nuanced thesis (not a flat 'yes/no'); a balanced structure (arguments for / against / personal stance); at least two concrete examples (a medicine, an AI use, a company, a historical case); chapter lexicon used accurately (breakthrough, equity/access, surveillance, autonomous weapons, accountability, regulation, precautionary principle); correct modals (must, should, could, might), passive and conditionals; logical connectors (however, moreover, due to, although, on balance).

Sample (subject A): "It is often claimed that a breakthrough that only the rich can afford is not real progress, and I largely agree. Science is meant to serve humanity, not a privileged few. When a life-saving gene therapy costs millions, it must be asked whether it truly represents progress or merely a new form of inequality. Insulin, discovered a century ago, still remains unaffordable for many today. However, I would add a nuance: a treatment may begin as expensive and gradually become cheaper, as has happened with computers and certain vaccines. The real problem is not the price at first, but the lack of rules that would guarantee fair access over time. On balance, I believe genuine progress must be measured not only by what science can achieve, but by how many people it can reach." (≈140 words) Reward structure, examples and accurate language.